FIFE forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

FIFE 0.4.0 has been released on 15th of January, 2017!

Poll

What version scheme should FIFE use in the future.

Keep the Year.Release scheme (2008.1, 2008.2 and so on)
- 2 (16.7%)
The X.Y.Z (Major.Minor.PatchLevel) scheme.
- 10 (83.3%)
I don't care.
- 0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 12


Author Topic: FIFE Version Scheme  (Read 5983 times)

phoku

  • Developer
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
    • IZ dev blog
FIFE Version Scheme
« on: August 16, 2009, 06:10:31 am »

FIFE has accumulated enough changes to warrant a new release.
However this brought up the question of using a more standard
versioning scheme.

Discussion on next release.

I personally think we should start with 0.1.0 and go from there.
But that's another poll :-)

-phoku
Logged

chewie

  • Developer
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
    • zero-projekt.net
Re: FIFE Version Scheme
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2009, 06:26:34 am »

x.y.z ftw - we are not Gentoo  ;D

flutschfinger

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: FIFE Version Scheme
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2009, 09:07:13 am »

In my opinion the x. y. z. scheme is much more better, cause as a user of the engine it's possible to recognize the state of it.

kili
Logged

mvBarracuda

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: FIFE Version Scheme
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2009, 11:14:10 am »

I'm fine with x.y.z scheme. I do however think that 0.1.0 is quite an understatement, because it sounds like a first pre-alpha release that is barely usable. While FIFE is surely not feature complete at this point, I would suggest to rather start with something like 0.5.0 or 0.6.0 but not 0.1.0.
Logged

vtchill

  • Developer
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
Re: FIFE Version Scheme
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2009, 01:28:24 pm »

also in favor of the x.y.z release scheme as i think it is more intuitive.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with labeling a release as alpha, beta, or stable for instance. I figure a section for stable releases is what a lot of projects do and we can do the same. So the first release could be under stable as 0.1.0 for instance.
Logged

christoph

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: FIFE Version Scheme
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2009, 03:13:12 pm »

x.y.z ftw - we are not Gentoo  ;D

Ah right, it's not just Ubuntu ;)
Logged

CheeseSucker

  • Developer
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • FIFE programmer
    • View Profile
Re: FIFE Version Scheme
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2009, 07:53:10 pm »

I agree with barra in that 0.1 sounds too low. I suggest we use 0.3 instead (for no other reason than commit #3000 coming up)
Logged

prock

  • Developer
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
Re: FIFE Version Scheme
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2009, 12:46:54 pm »

also in favor of the x.y.z release scheme as i think it is more intuitive.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with labeling a release as alpha, beta, or stable for instance. I figure a section for stable releases is what a lot of projects do and we can do the same. So the first release could be under stable as 0.1.0 for instance.

I am also in favor of the x.y.z release scheme.  Bug fixes would increment the "z" portion of the release scheme.  Planned feature changes/releases would increment the "y" portion of the release scheme.   Some projects have an even/odd scheme also where when y is even it's a stable release and when it's odd it's a development release.
Logged

christoph

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: FIFE Version Scheme
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2009, 09:22:18 am »

X.Y.Z is fine. I'd suggest the following, which would be quite usefull as FIFE is used a bit like a library:

X -- changes for everything that is not backward-compatible (needs sourcechanbges for users)
Y -- every new item / addition
Z -- Bug fixes, stuff that doesn't change forward/backward compatiblility
Logged