Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
Per Inge Mathisen wrote: After a quick discussion on IRC, I would like to propose a different versioning. I'd like to see a trunk alpha soon. However, since trunk does not yet contain the big incompatibilities that we foresaw for 3.0 (new savegame format, lua port), we should wait with the major version bump. So we should call the next big release 2.4. Then we reserve the 2.3 number space for a possible 2.2+incompatible net changes version in the future. Once we've done some MP test games among the developers, I would like to branch off and start making the first release from trunk as 2.4-alpha1. Opinions? So what's the goal of that 2.4 release? And by reserving 2.3 number space people could easily expect 2.3 from us at some point, although it may never come. We lack the manpower to maintain two branches and trunk. - Kreuvf signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
2009/10/5 Kreuvf kre...@warzone2100.de: So what's the goal of that 2.4 release? And by reserving 2.3 number space people could easily expect 2.3 from us at some point, although it may never come. We lack the manpower to maintain two branches and trunk. Yeah, let's just rename 2.4 to 3.0 alpha 1. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Zarel zare...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, let's just rename 2.4 to 3.0 alpha 1. Which part of the arguments against this that were previously presented did you not agree with? - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Per Inge Mathisen per.mathi...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Zarel zare...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, let's just rename 2.4 to 3.0 alpha 1. Which part of the arguments against this that were previously presented did you not agree with? Alphas don't need to be feature-complete, so feature-completeness isn't an issue. And having three supported branches is kind of weird. I really liked only having two... -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Kreuvf kre...@warzone2100.de wrote: So what's the goal of that 2.4 release? And by reserving 2.3 number space people could easily expect 2.3 from us at some point, although it may never come. We lack the manpower to maintain two branches and trunk. 2.3 will definitely come. Even if it ends up to be nothing but Buggy's netcode changes and some rebalancing from me, we're still going to release a version called 2.3. On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Christian Ohm chr@gmx.net wrote: How about 2.5 (halfway to 3.0)? 2.4 seems a bit arbitrary to me, and maybe too close to 2.2. .5 releases don't make much sense when you've already had a .1 and a .2 release, and are planning on a .3. What's wrong with 3.0a1? Alphas are not feature complete. On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Elio Gubser elio.o...@gmail.com wrote: may i just pop in and say betawidget among others were intended to be 3.0 The above goes for you, too. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Zarel zare...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Per Inge Mathisen per.mathi...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Zarel zare...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, let's just rename 2.4 to 3.0 alpha 1. Which part of the arguments against this that were previously presented did you not agree with? Alphas don't need to be feature-complete, so feature-completeness isn't an issue. Ah, but you see, we're not just proposing making a new snapshot of trunk and giving it a fancy name (what would really be the point of that) - we're proposing branching trunk so that we can proceed to make a release from it without all the neat things we've talked about for 3.0. And having three supported branches is kind of weird. I really liked only having two... That will always be the case when you are preparing for a new release. You have trunk (1), old stable (2), then the new to-be-stable-but-not-quite-yet branch (3). Once the third branch is stable and released, the second branch dies off and you are back to two supported branches. That is the way these things usually work ;-) - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
After a quick discussion on IRC, I would like to propose a different versioning. I'd like to see a trunk alpha soon. However, since trunk does not yet contain the big incompatibilities that we foresaw for 3.0 (new savegame format, lua port), we should wait with the major version bump. So we should call the next big release 2.4. Then we reserve the 2.3 number space for a possible 2.2+incompatible net changes version in the future. Once we've done some MP test games among the developers, I would like to branch off and start making the first release from trunk as 2.4-alpha1. Opinions? - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Per Inge Mathisen per.mathi...@gmail.com wrote: After a quick discussion on IRC, I would like to propose a different versioning. I'd like to see a trunk alpha soon. However, since trunk does not yet contain the big incompatibilities that we foresaw for 3.0 (new savegame format, lua port), we should wait with the major version bump. So we should call the next big release 2.4. Then we reserve the 2.3 number space for a possible 2.2+incompatible net changes version in the future. I'm fine with this. Once we've done some MP test games among the developers, I would like to branch off and start making the first release from trunk as 2.4-alpha1. Isn't trunk still really unstable? Have we fixed the commanders bug yet? -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
On 10/4/09, Per Inge Mathisen per.xx...@gmail.com wrote: After a quick discussion on IRC, I would like to propose a different versioning. I'd like to see a trunk alpha soon. However, since trunk does not yet contain the big incompatibilities that we foresaw for 3.0 (new savegame format, lua port), we should wait with the major version bump. So we should call the next big release 2.4. Then we reserve the 2.3 number space for a possible 2.2+incompatible net changes version in the future. Once we've done some MP test games among the developers, I would like to branch off and start making the first release from trunk as 2.4-alpha1. Opinions? Works for me (tm) Oh how I look forward to uploading 100+MB with my slow bandwidth :P ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
I think the 2.2 branch is a dead end. The network cleanup in trunk is a necessity for long-term maintenance, and it turned out to be quite hard to backport (I tried). If intel users can run trunk, we should use trunk for 2.3. We still haven't merged the big format changes to trunk, so I do not see any major reasons why not (provided intel users can run it). - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Per Inge Mathisen per.mathi...@gmail.com wrote: I think the 2.2 branch is a dead end. The network cleanup in trunk is a necessity for long-term maintenance, and it turned out to be quite hard to backport (I tried). If intel users can run trunk, we should use trunk for 2.3. We still haven't merged the big format changes to trunk, so I do not see any major reasons why not (provided intel users can run it). Well, back when I had an Intel-graphics-card laptop, I couldn't even run 2.2. :( Isn't trunk really unstable right now? We need to work on that lots. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
[warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
First off, I really think we need room to grow for the 2.2 branch. If we start to backport some changes from trunk to the current 2.2 it can/will break things, and saying 2.2.5 won't work with 2.2.4 because of XYZ isn't really a good way to handle it. Minor improvements and or bug fixes are for minor bumps in the version, but something more major really needs a major bump in the revision numbers. For example, the net code. As we all know, it is pretty different in trunk and branch, and it is much harder for us to maintain two versions of netcode. If we backport that from trunk to 2.2, it should be 2.3.0 not 2.2.5 (or whatever). Some of the other stuff would be the new savegame format and whatever else. Last topic of this nature was pretty much everyone said it was OK to make the current trunk 3.0. Can we all, finally agree how to handle this? ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Version scheme (again)
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:00 PM, bugs buggy buginato...@gmail.com wrote: For example, the net code. As we all know, it is pretty different in trunk and branch, and it is much harder for us to maintain two versions of netcode. If we backport that from trunk to 2.2, it should be 2.3.0 not 2.2.5 (or whatever). ... Last topic of this nature was pretty much everyone said it was OK to make the current trunk 3.0. Can we all, finally agree how to handle this? I thought we'd already agreed that that was exactly how we were going to handle it. o_O At least, that's what I mean when I say 2.3 and 3.0 on the forums nowadays. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
