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
