On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:46:58 -0500, Trevor G Quayle wrote:

> software.  Arguably, any number of the RC versions could've been
> upgraded to "POV 3.8", etc..  The only thing that would represent a
> traditional step to "POV 4.0" would probably be more a change in the
> interface, however, in the sense of how POV operates, this would be less
> minor than it would imply as POV is more about the underlying power and
> function than how the interface looks (it is not a modelling software).

Actually, what's been stated is that 4.0 is going to be released under a 
new license (GPLv3 IIRC, but I could be remembering incorrectly). :)

> I do know there is traditional reasoning and convention in the software
> industry on how version numbering is done, however, I don't think POV
> really fits in the traditional software model, and following such
> conventions can lead to confusion from the unitiated such as this.

Version numbering historically is used as a way of marking what features 
are enabled and how "up to date" you are relative to the current release.

Then marketing departments got hold of it, and version numbers are often 
decided on what marketing value they have.

> Something along this lines would be nice as it would help foster the
> continual growth of POV.  Rather than feature requests sometimes being
> "that'll have to wait until 4.0", if someone has the time and means to
> implement it into the code, it can be verified and added to the build at
> any time.

Build dates are useful as long as you have only one build per day. :)  Of 
course, you can get more granular than that.  The way Rockbox is versioned 
is a traditional versioning scheme, but whenever talking about self-built 
packages, it's easier to refer to the subversion revision (r12345) than a 
version number. :)

> Maybe just ramblings, or maybe some ideas to think about.  Eaither way
> version numbering for POV has long been of no interest for me.  I'm more
> interested in functionality: what can it do now, and what can it be made
> to do soon.

Same here, and I often wonder what it is that gets people hung up on a 
version number.  It's the features that are important.

Jim

Post a reply to this message