Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:24:24 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> > In all seriousness, ISTR there being a place on the POV-Ray site where
> > that specific answer was given - it used to be a FAQ, and the answer was
> > "don't ask - it'll be released when it's ready and not one minute
> > sooner".
>
> Ah, yes.  Here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bjugxlq
>
> Note the second paragraph from the end:
>
> "Please note that there is no firm schedule for the final release of
> POV-Ray 3.6. We have a reputation of releasing very stable software and
> intend that to remain so. The final version will be released when we are
> happy with it, and not before. We cannot give a date for this!"
>
> You're welcome.
>
> Jim

I think it's also that we get hung up on the idea of software versions these
days, always wanting the latest and greatest.  At this point POV is really
superceding this concept, and version numbering is somewhat irrelavant other
than putting things in historical order.  Even the "release candidate"
designations are no longer really relaese candidates, with all the major changes
that have been occuing in them.  Each release is just a growth of the previous
and at this point it doesn't really look like there will ever be a final 3.7, as
there will always be something new soneone wants to add.  The RC series just
represent a continuing growth of the current 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).

That said, perhaps there is some argument to stop calling the releases release
candidates (unless I am mistaken and there is some end-date at which it will be
'complete').  Perhaps move to calling it just "POV-Ray" with less focus on the
version number.  Of course version or build numbering would still need to be
kept superficially to keep track of where we are in POV's timeline.

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.

Taka a look for example at CHDK (hacked add-on firmware for Canon cameras for
those not familiar).  Basically it is not traditionally versioned, but
constantly (daily) has the latest 'build' updated on the server.  Each build may
be the same as the last, or it may include updates to the software whether minor
or major.

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.

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.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message