Brian, As you might imagine software version numbering has long been a subject of heavy debate. One of the better specifications that I've seen was by Tom Preston-Werner of GitHub. http://semver.org/
His proposal requires that the public API be declared and is defined by Version 1.0.0 In his proposal the Major version MUST be incremented if any backwards incompatible changes are introduced to the public API (Application Program Interface). You propose that this is a Minor version, not a Major version. In Tom's semantic versioning, a Minor version is incremented if new, backwards compatible changes are introduced to the public API. The database structure change is a backwards incompatible change to the public API and therefore a Major version increment from 7 to 8 fits. How a software developer numbers it's versions is not about the number of new features or even a change in the look of the program, it is about how they keep track of the dependencies within a software package. We, the public, view version numbering only in the light of how a developer charges for the improvements, and whether those improvements are "worth" the price. But, that really misses the point. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian L. Lightfoot [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:51 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Delete 7.5? > > I'm agreeing with all your observation and am left wondering why this > wasn't called v7.6 instead of v8.0. Maybe I'm a purist at heart but in > the past software marketers seldom increased a full digit unless it was > a radical redesign especially of the user interface. And I would doubt > that the incompatible database format would warrant such an incremental > increase because I believe that's been done in the past without a full > digit increase. > > But regardless of those minor things, version 8 is here and time to > enjoy it as written. > > > Brian in CA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Ferguson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 7:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Delete 7.5? > > Carl, > > Whilst I agree with your praise for the Legacy program, and I am sure > that Legacy will be delighted with your undoubted loyalty, you have not > given me one reason why I would spend money to upgrade. > > For me, I need to see technical improvements, and/or, additional > functions which I need - not the same as mere additional functions!! As > it is, V8.0 does give this, especially with Event Sharing, the return > of the 5 sourcing options, the loss of which was lamented by many of > us, the improved Family Search option (although I recognise the caveats > with family trees) and I really do like the new design options, and > much more. > > Are there things which I would have liked which are not there? Sure but > there is sufficient there to raise my interest. > > Ron Ferguson > http://www.fergys.co.uk/ > > > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) > and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
