Shouldn't 0.10 be 1.0?

[bgordebak]

It's not that important, but after 0.9 comes 1.0.

0.10 equals to 0.1 in math. So 0.10 is actually a wrong version number I think. It's not that important really, but it bothers me. I think 0.10 is worth being a 1.0 release, because LÖVE is pretty stable and can make already what it's supposed to do.

If this is 0.10, what would 1.0 do? Would it feature a "Make a game" button?

EDIT: Do we really need to be this much humble?

EDIT: At the time of this writing, LÖVE is the #1 2D game engine on slant. Including commercial ones.

[raidho36]

Versions: major 0, minor 10, release 2. It's not a decimal number, it's a dot notation of the previous: 0.10.2

It's not major version 1 yet because dev team thinks something crucial is still missing.

[bgordebak]

Versions: major 0, minor 10, release 2. It's not a decimal number, it's a dot notation of the previous: 0.10.2

I understand that, but it makes no sense. What does LÖVE have to do to have a 1.0 release?

I used to develop open source software (not a game engine, but still), I understand version numbering, but still it has to make sense like it's incremental.

Do we have to release a lot of minor releases before it's 1.0? It would feel like version numbers are sporadical. To make sense, you need nearly 100 minor releases in this position. 0.10 to 1.0? It would seem absurd.

As I said, it's not that important, but for people who doesn't know how your version numbering works, it has to make sense. If I saw 0.10, I would think this is an alpha release.

[zorg]

I understand that, but it makes no sense. What does LÖVE have to do to have a 1.0 release?

Heat death of the universe, Half Life 3 released, DNF remade with the build engine, Borderlands 3 released, one Nintendo game released on PC...

I used to develop open source software (not a game engine, but still), I understand version numbering, but still it has to make sense like it's incremental.

But it is incremental; after minor version 9 came minor version 10.

Do we have to release a lot of minor releases before it's 1.0? It would feel like version numbers are sporadical. To make sense, you need nearly 100 minor releases in this position. 0.10 to 1.0? It would seem absurd.

That's not how it works. But yes, releases are sporadical since you wouldn't want to update your codebase each day a tiny fix happened, now would you? Things would become even more incompatible than how it is now, and people still find things that only support 0.9 or even 0.8 ... not to mention some people are still stuck on 0.9 because their computers don't support 0.10... and 0.11 will come out soonish with features that won't be realistically backported either... but as raidho said below, at least Löve only increments the minor number when enough changes accumulate for a new release (and they only increment the sub/revision number if they absolutely need to release a hotfix)

As I said, it's not that important, but for people who doesn't know how your version numbering works, it has to make sense. If I saw 0.10, I would think this is an alpha release.

Well, if by alpha you don't mean "released" as in 1.0, then you are right, these are alpha releases.

[raidho36]

It's done when it's done. While it isn't, there could be untold gorillions of sub-versions.

There is an unfortunate trend of incrementing major versions randomly, sporadically as you put it, without major changes in the software to back it up, but this far LÖVE doesn't follow the suit which I and I'm sure many others can appreciate.

[bgordebak]

No problem. As I said, not that important.

EDIT: But I'd like it if the developers chime in and tell us what needs to be done to be a 1.0 release.

[bartbes]

If you really want a major version, you can pretend the major number doesn't exist, and we're on 10.2 instead!

Do we have to release a lot of minor releases before it's 1.0? It would feel like version numbers are sporadical. To make sense, you need nearly 100 minor releases in this position. 0.10 to 1.0? It would seem absurd.

There is no fixed point, 1.0 doesn't need to preceded by 0.99, maybe 0.11.0 will become 1.0.0, or maybe 0.12.0 will, or maybe the one after that, etc.

As I said, it's not that important, but for people who doesn't know how your version numbering works, it has to make sense.

I think there's a disturbing trend of dumbing this down. If I see version 3.9 following 3.8 I expect relatively small changes, if I see version 4.0 following 3.9 I would expect large changes. Recently, projects have been going from 3.9 to 4.0 with a "minor" change which means the major version is just useless at that point. It may as well be version 39 and version 40.

[bgordebak]

Okay, never mind. Not really important, and what you all say make sense.

I think I'm generally bothered with how the open source software version numbering systems work. Most of the time, some stable software which does what it's supposed to do well, is still years behind from a 1.0 version. It doesn't make sense to me generally. Not about LÖVE only.

It's a personal thing, and don't mind me. But I think being so different than commercial version numbering systems is too humble. Maybe if all the people used some names or dates for version names, I'd be more happy.

[zorg]

http://blogs.love2d.org/content/l%C3%B6 ... n-released

Version_History

[bgordebak]

http://blogs.love2d.org/content/l%C3%B6 ... n-released

Version_History

That's just awesome!