Personally I find this naming scheme rather appropriate. I definitely would have personally found it attention seeking if this release just jumped from 2.79 to 3.00
la 8. jouluk. 2018 klo 21.33 Benjamin Humpherys ( benjamin.humphe...@gmail.com) kirjoitti: > Here’s my splash of paint on this bike shed: > > I think bumping to 3.0 would be appropriate because of all the > backward-incompatible changes being made with the removal of BGE and BI, > and that the Python API has changed enough to break nearly every single > add-on out there. The addition of EEVEE, GP, UI overhaul, etc are big > enough to consider this a major release, but I think breaking compatibility > is the best reason for a major version jump. > > > On Dec 8, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Chad Fraleigh <ch...@triularity.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 12/8/2018 3:58 AM, Mick Lawitzke wrote: > >> it is really awesome to see the latest development of Blender. I am > super impressed and hyped for what is coming. Anyway i think there is a big > flaw that also results in a problem with marketing: Your versioning numbers > suggest that 2.80 is just a minor update to 2.79 and people call it 2.8 > (eight) instead of 2.80 (eighty). > >> I am a software developer for 15 years now and i highly recommend you > to use semantic versioning: > >> - Current version is Blender 2.79 but what if you do bugfixes on 2.79, > you would not call it 2.80 right? A better approach would be to call it > 2.79.0 and then a bugfix makes it 2.79.1. The current latest version might > be 2.79.102 if there were 102 patches on that version. > >> - The next version would be 2.80.0. But since you worked 3 years on > that and introduce so many awesome improvements and changes this is a major > update and would introduce Blender 3.0.0 (Or short just Blender 3). > > > > It does use semantic [compatible] versioning, just not in standard > dot-notation. Think of it more like 2.<major><minor>[<patch>], where the > leading 2 is [mostly] meaningless (similar to JDK versions 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, > ... where the 1 part is basically ignored). > > > > Blender -> "standard" dot notation examples: > > > > 2.7 -> 2.7.0.0 > > 2.70 -> 2.7.0.0 > > 2.78 -> 2.7.8.0 > > 2.78a -> 2.7.8.1 > > 7.78b -> 2.7.8.2 > > > > > >> From marketing perspective a "Blender 3" would have a much bigger > impact than just an update from "2.79" to "2.80" which is also incorrectly > called "2.8", too. > > > > 2.8 is shorthand for 2.8x, like "version 4" is shorthand for 4.x (in > standard dot notation). > > > > > >> In addition to that i just wanted to mention, that some big projects > skipped a version to make the latest update even more obvious: > >> - Windows jumped from 8 to 10 > >> - PHP jumped from 5 to 7 > >> This could be an option for Blender, too, to improve the marketing even > further: Jump from 2.79 to Blender 4. But in my opinion a jump to 3 would > already do the job. > > > > Ugh.. manipulative, fake version jumps is for products that care more > about PR than actual quality. And it is anti-semantic versioning, since it > breaks the logical/meaningful progression it was designed for (instead of > projects just picking versions out of a hat, all willy nilly). > > > > > > Personally, I've always thought it was a little confusing, too, but for > backward compatibility, that's what it is. Of course, when it eventually > gets past version 2.99, there might be an opportunity to move to standard > notation (e.g. 3.<minor>[.<patch>], then 4.x.x, ...) without breaking the > 2.x numbering style. Another option could be to market it as "Blender 8" > (where the 2.* is ignored), but still use 2.8x elsewhere (however, that is > confusing just like what java/JDK did). Maybe "jumping" to version 8.x (for > technical realignment, not trying-to-impress PR reasons). Really, 9.x would > be the earliest this could be done since 2.8x is already so heavily > ingrained. The last option would be my vote, given that 2.9x planning is > probably little more than a concept at this point and could easily be made > 9.x. > > > > So there's my 2 1/2 cents on the subject. Any similarity between my > thoughts and those of a raving madman may be more than just coincidental. =) > > > > > > -Chad > > _______________________________________________ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > Bf-committers@blender.org > > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers