5 ms·

Why 0.10 and not 1.0?

by Raphael 14y ago

hashmymustache 14y ago
This is a better version of my question. Why use dot decimal notation unless just a fun way to model versions after network addresses
- goodwink 14y ago
  The dot indicates division of something into smaller parts. For most things we choose our range for the minor denomination to coincide with our base or a multiple thereof like having 100 cents in a dollar, but software being what it is we need to be slightly more flexible.
quarterto 14y ago
Version numbers aren't like numbers. Don't read the . as "point". It's "major dot minor dot release". There's no reason to increment the major version just if the minor version happens to coincide with the number base we use. That's for versions with backwards compatibility breaks (apart from 1.0, which defines the stable public API). See http://semver.org/ http://semver.org/.
AdamTReineke 14y ago
This is toward the end of the page (seems that they're still making major changes, but not breaking backwards compatability. Looks like 1.0 will mostly lock down new features): "After 0.12, the next major stable release will be 1.0. At that point, very little will change in terms of the day-to-day operation of the project, but it will mark a significant milestone in terms of our stability and willingness to add new features. However, we've already gotten strict about maintaining backwards compatibility, so this won't really be so much of a shift. "
UNIXgod 14y ago
They are actually using meaningful numbers. 1.x generally describes maturity. More so it means the software toolkit is, for the most part, stable and ready for the real world. Since version numbering in the closed source world generally helps sell products it's nice to see an open source project act as it should where the first number after the point increments as features are added and the second number with an optional second point reflects bug fixes and patches. It's a big deal when a version hits 1.x. A project like node.js doesn't have to pander to the masses like mozilla did with the firefox so called pseudo psychological numbering scheme.
kid0m4n 14y ago
Rake, for example, was perpetually stuck in the 0.x version because the author just mentally mapped the "0." part away. It recently moved to version 10.x :)

Why 0.10 and not 1.0?

by Raphael 14y ago

Why 0.10 and not 1.0?

This is a better version of my question. Why use dot decimal notation unless just a fun way to model versions after network addresses

goodwink 14y ago
The dot indicates division of something into smaller parts. For most things we choose our range for the minor denomination to coincide with our base or a multiple thereof like having 100 cents in a dollar, but software being what it is we need to be slightly more flexible.

quarterto 14y ago

Version numbers aren't like numbers. Don't read the . as "point". It's "major dot minor dot release". There's no reason to increment the major version just if the minor version happens to coincide with the number base we use. That's for versions with backwards compatibility breaks (apart from 1.0, which defines the stable public API). See http://semver.org/ http://semver.org/.

AdamTReineke 14y ago

This is toward the end of the page (seems that they're still making major changes, but not breaking backwards compatability. Looks like 1.0 will mostly lock down new features): "After 0.12, the next major stable release will be 1.0. At that point, very little will change in terms of the day-to-day operation of the project, but it will mark a significant milestone in terms of our stability and willingness to add new features. However, we've already gotten strict about maintaining backwards compatibility, so this won't really be so much of a shift. "

UNIXgod 14y ago

They are actually using meaningful numbers. 1.x generally describes maturity. More so it means the software toolkit is, for the most part, stable and ready for the real world. Since version numbering in the closed source world generally helps sell products it's nice to see an open source project act as it should where the first number after the point increments as features are added and the second number with an optional second point reflects bug fixes and patches. It's a big deal when a version hits 1.x. A project like node.js doesn't have to pander to the masses like mozilla did with the firefox so called pseudo psychological numbering scheme.

kid0m4n 14y ago

Rake, for example, was perpetually stuck in the 0.x version because the author just mentally mapped the "0." part away. It recently moved to version 10.x :)