Re: [Bf-committers] Use of semantic versioning

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi,

Blender is almost 25 years old now, the versioning string was designed back 
then to be a digital number with 3 digits. It started with 1.00 and now is at 
2.80. The major leaps were noted as 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.0. 2.3. 2.5. and now 2.8. 
Just digital numbers.

In our field (3d GC) there are other programs who use nonstandard versioning to 
define own character. 
For open source it's definitely not common.

I don't think it's sensible to suddenly rename 2.8x to 3.0. Let's start 
thinking of what 3.0 could be next year when the beta is stable... a discussion 
on changing version numbering is possible then. I like this old tradition 
though. We have bigger challenges than that.

Regards,

-Ton-


Ton Roosendaal  -  t...@blender.org   -   www.blender.org
Chairman Blender Foundation, Director Blender Institute
Buikslotermeerplein 161, 1025 ET Amsterdam, the Netherlands

> On 8 Dec 2018, at 12:58, Mick Lawitzke  wrote:
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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.
> 
> Is is correct that semantic versioning is described for libraries/frameworks 
> ( https://semver.org/  ), but you could easily adapt it 
> to end-user software: 
> MAJOR version when you do a totally revamped UI, big-ass new features or huge 
> performance-improvements
> MINOR version when you add new features or do big improvements that can be 
> promoted on the website
> PATCH version when you make bug fixes or tiny improvements that don't change 
> the UI or introduce new features.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Greetings
> 
> Mick
> ___
> 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

Re: [Bf-committers] Use of semantic versioning

[Xavier Thomas]

lim x->inf (BlenderVersion) = 3

Le dim. 9 déc. 2018 à 18:09, Harley Acheson  a
écrit :

> Personally, I cannot wait to see the amazing changes that we will
> see as move from version 2.80 to 2.90 and then to 2.100
>
> LOL
> ___
> 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

Re: [Bf-committers] Use of semantic versioning

[Harley Acheson]

Personally, I cannot wait to see the amazing changes that we will
see as move from version 2.80 to 2.90 and then to 2.100

LOL
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Re: [Bf-committers] Use of semantic versioning

[Rojuinex]

> - Windows jumped from 8 to 10

Interestingly the reason for this was not for PR or marketing reasons but for 
compatibility. Even though windows has an internal version number it was 
apparently common to check the product name to see if it began with "Windows 9" 
to determine if an application was being run on Windows 95 or 98.

Windows had started out with a numbered scheme Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0 Windows 
3.0 but changes with the introduction of New Technology, abbreviated NT, 
Windows new kernel and OS not based off the old DOS architecture.  After 
Windows NT they switched to a yearly naming scheme; 95, 98, ME, 2000. XP was 
short for eXPerience because reasons. Vista was a graphic overhaul so it was a 
new sight ie "vista". The obviously came next 7, 8, 8.1, and 10.

Who knew changing a product naming scheme so often would cause problems?

Personally I haven't found any confusion with blenders naming scheme (I too am 
a Software Engineer for several years).  Though with all the major breaking 
changes in 2.8x, 3.0 could have made sense.  But I think every .x jump in 
Blender has usually brought pretty significant changes and I feel like the 
community is conditioned to expect major changes when the tenths place changes.

Thanks,
Caleb
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Re: [Bf-committers] Use of semantic versioning

[Ricardo Nunes]

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  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.[], 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.[.], 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

Re: [Bf-committers] Use of semantic versioning

[Benjamin Humpherys]

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  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.[], 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.[.], 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

Re: [Bf-committers] Use of semantic versioning

[Chad Fraleigh]

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.[], 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.[.], 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] Use of semantic versioning

[Mick Lawitzke]

Hey guys,

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).

>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.

Is is correct that semantic versioning is described for libraries/frameworks ( 
https://semver.org/  ), but you could easily adapt it to 
end-user software: 
MAJOR version when you do a totally revamped UI, big-ass new features or huge 
performance-improvements
MINOR version when you add new features or do big improvements that can be 
promoted on the website
PATCH version when you make bug fixes or tiny improvements that don't change 
the UI or introduce new features.

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.

Greetings

Mick
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers