4 ms·
I feel like that move really should have been a major version bump, it was a big move across the board where many aspects of functionality changed or were remov
by lewispollard 5y ago
I feel like that move really should have been a major version bump, it was a big move across the board where many aspects of functionality changed or were removed, UI locations and naming completely changed, keyboard shortcuts and UX changes across the board, and so on.
Minor bump 2.7 -> 2.8 = everything breaks, your workflow no longer functions, you have to relearn the API, online resources and documentation no longer relevant for many aspects of the editor
Major bump 2.8/9 -> 3.0 = everything is compatible with 2.8?? Just feels like 2.8/2.9 and what's referenced in the blog post should have been version 3 to me, but maybe they had some technical reason regarding the backend and scripting APIs?
- bsanr2 5y agoThe laws of digital physics say that FOSS jank must be conserved, they just moved it to someplace people won't mind. I'd rather have weird update numbers than weird updates.
- Uehreka 5y agoI don’t have any inside info, but the vibe I got back then was that Blender just considered the x in 2.x to be the major version (with the idea that they weren’t going to release a 3.0). Though if that was true, it seems they’ve changed their minds in the couple years since.
- dagmx 5y agoIt was a major version number change. Per the top of the blog post here, they're switching to a new versioning system with 3.x Prior to 3.x, the major version was the .X part and the 2 was somewhat meaningless. E.g their versioning prior to 3.x is 2.major.minor.patch and will now switch to major.minor.patch