Shouldn't 0.10 be 1.0?

[bgordebak]

I will give Gimp as an example. It started development in 1995, you read it right, 22 years ago. It's the de facto open source image editing software, and it's still at 2.8 version. Does it make any sense?

This almost means a 1.0 release every 10 years. In this time frame, Adobe published several Photoshop 1.0 releases, changed its version naming system, and released several more 1.0 versions.

I'm guilty of this myself too. Some time ago, I was developing an open source text editor, which kinda became popular until I stopped developing it. It never reached 1.0, but it did what it was supposed to do.

Years later, I read a blog post on a popular technology blog about open source software. It gave an example of how open source developers are too afraid to call a 1.0 version. It didn't give the example project's name, but it gave the version numbers. And it was my software!

There you go.

He was right. My software was already in a stable, working well state, and I have started to add unnecessary features to it. But it wasn't 1.0 yet!

Because I didn't have a plan. I didn't know what v1.0 would do. I just developed, and increased the minor version. But somewhere you need to call it 1.0.

If anyone is wondering, my project was textroom. It was before Qt5, so it needs a little tweaking to work with it. Latest version was 0.8.2.

[Positive07]

I think LÖVE is not ready yet for this kind of stuff, it's true that the core features are mostly stable but there are so many breaking changes every release that it's not a 1.0 release.

Making a 1.0 release means that the API will be stable and only additions and improvements are allowed. And if you think about it just the simple change that is going to happen in 0.11.0 of making colors from 0 to 1 instead of 0 to 255 would break this.

LÖVE lacks, HTTPS support, Microphone support is comming in 0.11.0, together with sound effects, this big features are still comming, and they are really important. They should make it in before a 1.0 release.

Anyway this is for the developers to decide. Does a number change anything at all? I don't really think so, LÖVE hasn't got many bugs, and it has most (if not all) the needed features for a game, so what version it is doesn't really matter! it's just a distinction so that you know which API set are you using in each game

[bgordebak]

I think LÖVE is not ready yet for this kind of stuff, it's true that the core features are mostly stable but there are so many breaking changes every release that it's not a 1.0 release.

Making a 1.0 release means that the API will be stable and only additions and improvements are allowed. And if you think about it just the simple change that is going to happen in 0.11.0 of making colors from 0 to 1 instead of 0 to 255 would break this.

LÖVE lacks, HTTPS support, Microphone support is comming in 0.11.0, together with sound effects, this big features are still comming, and they are really important. They should make it in before a 1.0 release.

Anyway this is for the developers to decide. Does a number change anything at all? I don't really think so, LÖVE hasn't got many bugs, and it has most (if not all) the needed features for a game, so what version it is doesn't really matter! it's just a distinction so that you know which API set are you using in each game

Don't get me wrong: I already think that it doesn't matter. It's just a personal wish that free software developers would be more courageous in version numbering. Some things may be not implemented, but they might be implemented in 2.0 also. You don't need to have a perfect system to be 1.0. There are also 2.0, 3.0 etc.

I just wish open source and proprietary software version numbers could be more similar, that's all.

No matter what, I agree. It doesn't matter that much. 0.10 or 10.0, it's the same system in the end.

[Positive07]

Call it 10.2 then and it is fixed!

[bgordebak]

Call it 10.2 then and it is fixed!

Yep!

[Nixola]

I just wish open source and proprietary software version numbers could be more similar, that's all.

I don't think that'll happen and I don't think it should happen, either. Proprietary and open source software differ in so many ways (how they're made, deadlines, contributions, user interaction with creators of said software, aim, etc) that having similar version numbers is meaningless.

[Positive07]

I don't think that'll happen and I don't think it should happen, either. Proprietary and open source software differ in so many ways (how they're made, deadlines, contributions, user interaction with creators of said software, aim, etc) that having similar version numbers is meaningless.

I haven't thought about this before but I can totally relate to what Nixola is saying.

Propietary software doesn't necessarily need to take in consideration the community, has some strict deadlines that they have to follow or they users won't pay them, contributions are all inside a team and they track them really well because otherwise nothing would work at all. What makes it in the 1.0 release is what their employee asked for nothing else nothing less.

Compare that to open source where you have a community that has a lot of voice in the decision, no real deadlines of when the next release is gonna be released, no one is paid so they work when they have free time, contributions can come from the outside so new unexpected features can come in (like raidho's queued sound, sound effects, microphone support, or fysx Android port), and there is no one strictly telling the developers what can or can't be in 1.0 or the next release.

[bgordebak]

That's right.

[bgordebak]

If you people read my story above about textroom, you can understand why I thought like this. It doesn't matter in the end, and it will never happen, that's for sure. But if it were, version numbers would mean more than just iterations. For example, a working stable release could be a major release, so you wouldn't need version numbers like "v0.23.534-beta"

You would instantly know if it's a beta or it's a stable release. But it will never happen, I'm okay with that.

[slime]

http://blogs.love2d.org/content/l%C3%B6 ... iews-slime

Do you expect to see LÖVE 1.0.0 happen in your lifetime?

Personally the “1.0” version tag doesn’t actually mean a whole lot to me, it’s all pretty arbitrary. 0.10.0 could have been labelled 1.0, or 2.0, or 10.0 if we had decided – and maybe a future major release will skip 1.0 entirely and/or change versioning schemes, who knows!

I consider LÖVE to have been ready for use in complex 2D commercial games since around 0.8.0 or so, and 0.10 has been very stable so far. All of the minor (0.X.0) version releases in the past few years have had breaking changes but not complete overhauls of LÖVE at a fundamental level, and I don’t see that changing in the future.