Topic: Considering changing version numbering from x.xx to 2009.x

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • #13968
    Pigini
    Participant

    @H-man wrote:

    With all respect to Pigini’s idea, I don’t really like the idea of going form 2.09 to 2.35 to 2.416 (?) etc. I get what it means, it just feels strange.

    MuLab went from 2.02 to 2.5 mainly for adding rewire support, a major feature, quite some bit of work I suppose. Podium modestly only went from 2.01 to 2.02 for that.
    I mean the versioning should reflect the amount of work and changes better. Wasn’t that the idea of version schemes, once?
    You could easily see, if there were many features added or mainly bugfixes.

    #13969
    jpleong
    Participant

    I like the [full-year].[revision] as it is logical. The only problem is that it does not match industry “standards” or “expectations” for versions but since Podium bucks industry standards anyway…

    We could also attach cute names to accompany each .[revision] such as fruits or types of canines and include a pertinent cartoon logo for each.

    Also, would someone mind informing me of the licensing change? Did I miss that somewhere while I was away? edit – found it! nevermind

    JP

    #13971
    Pigini
    Participant

    @jpleong wrote:

    We could also attach cute names to accompany each .[revision] such as fruits or types of canines and include a pertinent cartoon logo for each.

    Seriously?
    Does the jp in your nick stand for Japanese? šŸ˜‰

    #13972
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    @jpleong wrote:

    We could also attach cute names to accompany each .[revision] such as fruits or types of canines and include a pertinent cartoon logo for each.

    šŸ˜†

    The “Bugs Bunny Edition” instead of “2.09”. Worth considering.

    #13975
    jpleong
    Participant

    @Pigini wrote:

    Seriously?
    Does the jp in your nick stand for Japanese? šŸ˜‰

    I was actually making a jab at Apple. But it might be fun, too, to have that little “unexpected” detail added to every new release of Podium. It’d make a great portfolio project (aka: free) for a graphic or digital design student.

    I’m of Chinese ancestry, btw! šŸ˜‰

    JP

    #13978
    pj geerlings
    Participant

    @Zynewave wrote:

    @pj geerlings wrote:

    @Zynewave wrote:

    If the problem is too many digits in “2009.1”, an alternative would be to remove the period in the old version numbers, and present the version as “build 209”, “build 210” etc.?

    Could you list the next three releases using this scheme – I’m not sure I get this at all šŸ˜•

    Build 211, Build 212, Build 213. Essentially just continuing the current numbering without the decimal point. But I have already regretted my use of the word “build”. This is often used as an internal counter of developer compilations.

    Ah, thanks!

    So how about B209.x for betas off of your next release (the one with PR upgrades) and R210 for the “next” release after that?

    (Actually I am happy if you are happy – and any scheme that makes sense to you will be fine …)

    peace,
    pj

    #13989
    Conquistador
    Participant

    @Zynewave wrote:

    But people would still expect a 3.0 release coming out within 1-2 year after a 2.0 release, as is the normal practice. It was your comment on the VIP topic about the purchase page changes, that made me realize that I need to disassociate the version numbering from peoples expectations when they see a x.xx version format.

    Funnily enough it was your test page (on the VIP) that made me think of the upgrade perception of Podium and the need to clarify it. šŸ™‚

    Some would read that as Feb the 9th. (and not 2009).

    Sometimes there are also more than one release within one month, so year+month is not sufficient

    Maybe yes.

    So what about this then?

    Scrap the current system. Some clarification will be needed on the Zynewave homepage and via an announcement on KVR e.t.c.

    Simply call 2.09 “Update 1”. This will be a totally new phase for Podiums branding so to speak. That way it will be clear it is a new start version wise. Update 2 and Update 3 will of course follow not long after that so it will be very clear that one should not expect a major upgrade as…

    a. It will surely be explained in the announcement re launch.

    b. No one will expect Update 2 to be some huge feature addition as the frequency of the release will remove any such expectation.

    I thought about “Update 1.00” but it is too close the the numbering system many are already used to. As soon as we get to Update 1.99 expectations for Update 2.00 will soar. Not the case with “Update 1” as within a few weeks / months we hit Update 2,3 e.t.c. People will easily understand the Podium update concept IMO within a very short space of time if not immeadiately.

    “Update 1” is different yet simple. It must be different enough to get the point across that Podiums development is update based not update and upgrade based. I think this idea along with some brief clarification (maybe wrapped inside a product relaunch and site update) would work very well.

    #13993
    Pigini
    Participant

    a good read @wikipedia about software versioning:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning

    #13995
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    @Pigini wrote:

    a good read @wikipedia about software versioning:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning

    Thanks. It seems there are no common version numbering systems that are tailored for purely incremental updates. Judging by the replies in this topic it will be difficult to replace the current x.xx numbering with something we all think makes sense. I think I’ll just continue with the current system, to avoid the confusion of introducing a new version format.

    #14095
    Conquistador
    Participant

    At the very least I would suggest changing the heading for the “Releases” forum to “Updates”.

    Also instead of…

    “Announcement and feedback on Podium releases. Bug reports goes here.”

    To further mirror the update structure Podium uses instead of updates and upgrades…

    “Announcement and feedback on Podium updates. Bug reports goes here.”

    šŸ˜‰

    #14098
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    @Conquistador wrote:

    At the very least I would suggest changing the heading for the “Releases” forum to “Updates”.

    Also instead of…

    “Announcement and feedback on Podium releases. Bug reports goes here.”

    To further mirror the update structure Podium uses instead of updates and upgrades…

    “Announcement and feedback on Podium updates. Bug reports goes here.”

    šŸ˜‰

    What’s wrong with the word “releases”?

    #14100
    Conquistador
    Participant

    @Zynewave wrote:

    What’s wrong with the word “releases”?

    It is not wrong or incorrect. šŸ™‚

    It is just a suggested header change for the Release forum title to avoid confusion about Podiums update only dev and release schedule. Any update or upgrade from a company is already known to be a release of some sort but with Podium not having any upgrades at all, a simple way to better highlight that point I think would help.

    But yes the word “Releases” is not wrong. It is of course a widely used term by just about every dev out there Music related or not. The suggestion is not to drop the term for describing Podium updates at all (which would be silly) just the Releases forum header to better illustrate the update only approach you offer.

    Not a major deal but I think it would help.

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Ā© 2021 Zynewave