Version Numbering Thread last updated on 2005-12-30 00:44:53

Posted by member 280260 on 2005-12-26 20:44:31

What, if any, are the conventions for numbering the versions of themes, modules, builds, etc.?

Posted by member 1 on 2005-12-26 20:56:49 link

Author's choice. But basically it is MajorVersion.MinorVersion, beyond that yer on your own.

Posted by member 280260 on 2005-12-26 20:58:09 link

thanks.

Posted by member 212670 on 2005-12-26 21:46:54 link

I try to take in to consideration how "finished" it feels, and if I plan on updates.

Posted by member 1885 on 2005-12-27 06:41:16 link

Yeah, what xcal said. If the first release of a theme is pretty much the way I want it I usually call it 1.0. Minor subsequent fixes can be released as 1.01 and so on. If, on the other hand, the theme is a messy test release (features missing or broken etc.) I'll call it 0.1. That gives you more room for improvements before the theme goes final.

Posted by member 248213 on 2005-12-27 11:33:08 link

Yeah that makes sense xcal/West, that is generally how everyone else does it too (come to expect a 0.1 will be unfinished)

Posted by member 99 on 2005-12-28 10:39:32 link

I switched to using major.minor.bugfix for modules because it's hard to limit yourself to 10 bugs.

Posted by member 248213 on 2005-12-28 21:32:29 link

yeah, a minor release would contain many bugfixes,

Why is the core versioning so munted then? (o.24.7, no major releases, 24 minors, and 7 bugfixes?)

Posted by member 12025 on 2005-12-28 22:49:22 link

Open-source projects are often versioned more to keep track of changes than to show that they are release-ready. Many a stable and reliable app is still in the 0.1 range.

Posted by member 248213 on 2005-12-29 00:53:55 link

Well, if thats the case, I think there is something wrong with the versioning of many stable apps ;)

Why not just call it 1.0 ? IMHO its an indicator of work history and everything that goes with it (a 1.0 app should be more stable/reliable than a 0.4 app, IMO)

And LS has been stable for ages...

Posted by member 12025 on 2005-12-29 11:07:04 link

...the objective was never to sell anyone on it. So, if it isn't totally rewritten, why make a major version change?

Posted by member 1 on 2005-12-29 12:47:19 link

I know that the discussion took place when we dropped the b from the versioning that LS should never hit a 1.0 release. LS was to remain in a never ending beta lifecycle.

Posted by member 248213 on 2005-12-29 22:10:49 link

weird...

DeV: Is the point of doing that to detract n00bs and attract geeks?

if so, it doesnt seem to be working... (or is it just ls.net =P )

Posted by member 1 on 2005-12-29 23:48:49 link

nah...had to do with not setting the expectation that it would ever be finished.

Posted by member 280260 on 2005-12-30 00:44:53 link

I thought the whole point of open-source was that there was no such thing as a finished product.

What's next - LiteStep Professional Edition, for the Home Office?

Expect biannual service packs that will gradually delete every key in your registry.