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

@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.

@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? 😉

@Pigini wrote:

Seriously?
Does the jp in your nick stand for Japanese? 😉

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! 😉

JP

@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. 🙂

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.