Change this forum name to 1.31.x

All notes and input on 2.0 Development are herein. <ul><li>Feature requests</li>
<li>Bug Reports</li>
<li>Beta Testing Feedback</li>
<li>Open Dev Discussion</li></ul>

Moderator: Coranto Moderator Team

Change this forum name to 1.31.x

Postby Parahead » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:18 pm

The name of the next release after 1.25 is 1.31.x, not 1.3.

I did try and discuss with msbzdragn about a change of next stable release version from 1.YY.x to call it 2.0 instead, but he wasn't turned on by that idea. Maybe now this may be a good idea to mark the "new begining" of Coranto?
Yes, I am still around...
www.parahead.com/coranto/
User avatar
Parahead
 
Posts: 4837
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Stockholm - Sweden

Postby Lumberjack » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:28 pm

I'd say there are enough new features to warrant calling it v2.0. It's a nice job! I found a couple of small bugs so far that I've managed to correct.. changed lines are posted in one of these topics here...
Lumberjack
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:22 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Postby SrNupsen » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:50 pm

2.0 it is!


(Unless somebody complains wildly, that is)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coranto is free software. I am available for custom work or troubleshooting.

http://www.sundaune.no - transkripsjon, webdesign, nettsider, tekstbyrå
http://www.vagbladet.no - satire, politikk, kultur, sport, nettavis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SrNupsen
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:46 pm
Location: Nesodden, outside Oslo, Norway

Postby Jackanape » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:06 am

I like 2.0...it's really a sign of progress...especially if that's what Parahead was thinking all along...
User avatar
Jackanape
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:15 am
Location: Capitol of the Great State of New York

Postby Parahead » Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:06 am

Lumberjack wrote:I'd say there are enough new features to warrant calling it v2.0. It's a nice job! I found a couple of small bugs so far that I've managed to correct.. changed lines are posted in one of these topics here...
Great to have some else going over the code. My suggestion is to keep releasing development versions as 1.31.x and stepping up the minor version number for each release and when you really think it should be released as stable do it as 2.0. Just my $2
Yes, I am still around...
www.parahead.com/coranto/
User avatar
Parahead
 
Posts: 4837
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Stockholm - Sweden

Postby Lumberjack » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:16 pm

That's something I never quite understood.. at what point do you increment the version number? I mean, I've made a few small bugfixes but I don't think I can call that a new version. But maybe it should be 1.31.6 *shrug*
Lumberjack
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:22 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Postby Parahead » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:45 pm

Lumberjack wrote:That's something I never quite understood.. at what point do you increment the version number? I mean, I've made a few small bugfixes but I don't think I can call that a new version. But maybe it should be 1.31.6 *shrug*
A release consists of Major.Minor.Micro. For Coranto, we haven't really changed the Major number for years. The Minor version number has been incremented each time a larger release has been made available. The Micro version number has often only been used for development releases before a new larger release. However, the micro number should also be incremented if releasing a new bugfix version of a stable release.

Anyway, *every* time a new release is put up for download the micro version should be incremented, even if it only means a spelling misstake was corrected from the last one so it is no doubt what so ever which version a single user is running. We have had cases where some developers thought "Hey, the old release only was available for download a day, I fix this bug and release a new one with the same version numbers". That is a bad misstake...

Personally I also think that when a release goes from development to stable, the minor version should be incremented by one (1.31.x => 1.32). Think of it like some Linux distributions do, an odd minor version number indicates development release (1.31.x) and an even number indicates stable (1.32.x). However, in the case of making the developmen release 1.31.x stable, we seem to have come the conclusion to go increment also the major number, baically go to 2.0.

If for some reason, a bugfix release is needed for 2.0, this will be called 2.0.1. The next larger (but not major) development version the devteam works on after 2.0 would be 2.1.x and when that is ready to be made a stable release, it will be called 2.2.

Simple, huh?
Yes, I am still around...
www.parahead.com/coranto/
User avatar
Parahead
 
Posts: 4837
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Stockholm - Sweden

Postby Lumberjack » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:51 pm

Yes, its a perfect explanation! I only need to increment the micro number for these small bugfixes if it is put online. If in the meantime I make bigger changes, then I call it 1.33 (saving 1.32 for the stable release, assuming no 2.0). Yes I like this system.. its good to adopt the linux style odd and even thing. Oh, sorry, I should say "we, the development team" and not "I". But as yet there is noone else but me as far as I know.
Lumberjack
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:22 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Postby Parahead » Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:08 pm

Lumberjack wrote:Yes, its a perfect explanation! I only need to increment the micro number for these small bugfixes if it is put online. If in the meantime I make bigger changes, then I call it 1.33 (saving 1.32 for the stable release, assuming no 2.0).
Nope, you stick with 1.31.x! Basically, during development, you will apply both bugfixes and new features along side each other, so only the micro number should be bumped... After a stable release is made of the dev, then you increment the minor number.

If you would bump the development from 1.31.x to 1.33.x, what would the next development release after the stable 1.32 be labeled? You need to keep the releases sequential. 1.31.x is the pre-development for 1.32 (or 2.0), and only bumbing the micro number should be done (the x). 1.33.x (or 2.1.x) is the development version before the release of the *next* stable release; 1.34 (or 2.2) respectively.

development 1.31.x => stable 1.32 => development 1.33.x => stable 1.34 => development 1.35.x.
Yes, I am still around...
www.parahead.com/coranto/
User avatar
Parahead
 
Posts: 4837
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Stockholm - Sweden

Postby Lumberjack » Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:14 pm

Ok I'm with you.
Lumberjack
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:22 pm
Location: Oxford, UK


Return to Coranto 2.0 Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest

cron