LÖVE

Basically I'm just wondering when love v8.1 is coming out and what if you know what v8.1 will come with and whats going to be removed.

First, we're still on 0.x.

Second, the release to come out is 0.8.0, not 0.8.1 which you seem to believe.

Third, there is not much keeping 0.8.0 from being released. If everything goes well, it might come out this week. (But you didn't hear this from me)

Firstly, v8.1 probably won't come out for .... decades. You are interested in 0.8.0, I assume (It hasn't be released yet.)

From this thread, I believe the release will be once these bugs are fixed:

The Box2d Bugs (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14748254/L%C3%9 ... issues.txt) Seems like they're done.

From the IRC channel: #341 was marked as a duplicate of #333, which was closed.
#342, #335, #326 and #321 are marked as resolved.

And I've heard a lot of issues coming from the OS X build, but I think slime pushed fixes for that.

I also noticed a problem with the imageData:paste, but bartbes was quick to patch that and put it in repo.

The only other tickets that are open that are assigned are 237 and 120, but I don't think they will delay 0.8.0.

So with all this research, it's unfortunate that the only thing I can say is "soon".

As for what's being removed in 0.8.1, I don't even think there's a roadmap for that yet.

thelinx wrote:First, we're still on 0.x.

Second, the release to come out is 0.8.0, not 0.8.1 which you seem to believe.

Third, there is not much keeping 0.8.0 from being released. If everything goes well, it might come out this week. (But you didn't hear this from me)

oh sorry for my mistake I don't know why I was thinking 8.1. oh this week you say ok i'll be on the look out for it.

this might be a dumb question or noobish but what determines a software version number like v0.2.1.0 or 1.8.0, is it just what ever the developer feels like putting or is there something to it.

kingslovelua wrote:this might be a dumb question or noobish but what determines a software version number like v0.2.1.0 or 1.8.0, is it just what ever the developer feels like putting or is there something to it.

Basically, yes, it's what they feel like. Mostly, the first number (currently 0 for LÖVE) is for really big changes, the second (currently 7, soon 8) for smaller changes and the third (currently 2, soon to be reset to 0) for really small changes.

But it really depends on the project. Look at Windows: they started out with 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 2.03, 2.10, 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, NT 3.1, 3.11, 3.2, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, 95, NT 4.0, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8. They aren't even consistent with their own practice.

There are even weirder version naming methods: the version number of TeX approaches pi: it is currently 3.1415926 and new versions will only add smaller digits. This because Donald Knuth is a big geek, but mainly to signify that new versions of TeX should not break existing documents, and only add bug fixes.

Generally, when you reach 1.x, you proclaim that your software is "Stable", meaning there's close to no bugs, and that it's very feature-complete.
LÖVE still has some way to go before it reaches that.

thelinx wrote:Generally, when you reach 1.x, you proclaim that your software is "Stable", meaning there's close to no bugs, and that it's very feature-complete.
LÖVE still has some way to go before it reaches that.

Speaking of which, are there long-term plans? Or do you guys just look at version mile-stones for the upcoming version? So, the concise version of my question is: is there a confirmed, agreed on, final image of what LÖVE 1.0 will look like?

Robin wrote:

kingslovelua wrote:this might be a dumb question or noobish but what determines a software version number like v0.2.1.0 or 1.8.0, is it just what ever the developer feels like putting or is there something to it.

Basically, yes, it's what they feel like. Mostly, the first number (currently 0 for LÖVE) is for really big changes, the second (currently 7, soon 8) for smaller changes and the third (currently 2, soon to be reset to 0) for really small changes.

But it really depends on the project. Look at Windows: they started out with 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 2.03, 2.10, 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, NT 3.1, 3.11, 3.2, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, 95, NT 4.0, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8. They aren't even consistent with their own practice.

There are even weirder version naming methods: the version number of TeX approaches pi: it is currently 3.1415926 and new versions will only add smaller digits. This because Donald Knuth is a big geek, but mainly to signify that new versions of TeX should not break existing documents, and only add bug fixes.

Thank you very usefully information. I guess you can say you did your good deed for the day.

Wrinkliez wrote:Is there a confirmed, agreed on, final image of what LÖVE 1.0 will look like?

No.

Robin wrote:

kingslovelua wrote:this might be a dumb question or noobish but what determines a software version number like v0.2.1.0 or 1.8.0, is it just what ever the developer feels like putting or is there something to it.

Basically, yes, it's what they feel like. Mostly, the first number (currently 0 for LÖVE) is for really big changes, the second (currently 7, soon 8) for smaller changes and the third (currently 2, soon to be reset to 0) for really small changes.

But it really depends on the project. Look at Windows: they started out with 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 2.03, 2.10, 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, NT 3.1, 3.11, 3.2, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, 95, NT 4.0, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8. They aren't even consistent with their own practice.

There are even weirder version naming methods: the version number of TeX approaches pi: it is currently 3.1415926 and new versions will only add smaller digits. This because Donald Knuth is a big geek, but mainly to signify that new versions of TeX should not break existing documents, and only add bug fixes.

Just as an aside, I'm a fan of the year.month.bugfix style of numbering, like the recently released Ubuntu 10.04.4, meaning the 4th bugfix release of the April 2010 version. Not that I think love should adopt such a model, just pointing out that there are others that appear sane.