User forums > Announcements
About RC3
Conan Kudo:
I really do not know what to think now, with all the delays in C::B 1.0rc3. I guess I could take this oppertunity to work on some other projects, but C::B is a big gaping hole in many things I do. And I really cannot recommend it until a decent release is made. For now, I'm working on a bunch of NSIS projects, but hopefully in the future, I can install Code::Blocks on my Fedora Core 5 laptop and be happy that it is a release. With as many delays that Code::Blocks has had, I would call this Code::Blocks 1.0 RC final. Or even, Code::Blocks 1.0. Too many changes to warrant calling it 1.0rc3 in my book. I'm prepared for the day Code::Blocks 1.0rc3/rc final/1.0 releases and have my entire build system reconstructed. I don't want to use nightlies on my laptop because it is already cluttered with lots of different build systems and different workings. I have to still get the crosscompile tools for GCC 4.1.x, but i doubt there is such a thing.
Game_Ender:
I think the problem is with the version number scheme, it has gotten everyone confused. Release Candidates are just that, a build which could pretty well become the final build for that version, ie the checksum of the RC3 should/coud be equal to the checksum of 1.0 final. It appears as if mostly bug fixes are going into the trunk right now, so we are doing pretty good.
I think CB is going to be one of the version number jumping products (not really a bad thing), after all the next version is already called 1.5, which means the release after that will most likely be 2.0. Frankly I like the way the linux kernel does things with number like: Major.Minor.Bugfix. You only a new major version if some massive interface breaking changes comes along with a large rewrite of the project. Minor versions alternate between unstable and stable. For example the next develpement version of CB would be 1.1.0 only while it was being developed. After it finished, it would become 1.2.0. The Bufix part of the number is for any changes or bugfixes that don't break the interface. In our example you get 1.2.1, 1.2.2 etc. These number don't roll over after you get to 9, so its perfectly ok to have 1.11.13. This is also pretty close to how GCC does there release scheme, although I don't think the do the stable/unstable thing for the Minor version number.
No matter how logical the above the is, its still opinion and not a rule. Many projects, especially those more oriented to users like to jump the version numbers. Firefox has been doing that recently with it's skip up to 1.5 and soon 2.0. Code::Blocks is great project and the more I use the more I like it. I think plenty of people here want a good stable 1.0 release that they can develope some good pluggins against it. That is why the CB team is working so hard to make sure they get this release right.
Just be patient, and forigve my minor rant on version numbering.
Michael:
--- Quote from: Pharaoh Atem on July 08, 2006, 12:11:19 am ---I really do not know what to think now, with all the delays in C::B 1.0rc3. I guess I could take this oppertunity to work on some other projects, but C::B is a big gaping hole in many things I do. And I really cannot recommend it until a decent release is made. For now, I'm working on a bunch of NSIS projects, but hopefully in the future, I can install Code::Blocks on my Fedora Core 5 laptop and be happy that it is a release. With as many delays that Code::Blocks has had, I would call this Code::Blocks 1.0 RC final. Or even, Code::Blocks 1.0. Too many changes to warrant calling it 1.0rc3 in my book. I'm prepared for the day Code::Blocks 1.0rc3/rc final/1.0 releases and have my entire build system reconstructed. I don't want to use nightlies on my laptop because it is already cluttered with lots of different build systems and different workings. I have to still get the crosscompile tools for GCC 4.1.x, but i doubt there is such a thing.
--- End quote ---
Hello,
IMHO, the delay of RC3 is justified for one reason or another. C::B devs work hard to provide a very good and usable IDE.
Nightly builds are IMHO not bad at all and you do not need to update each night if you do not want. Moreover, you just need one nightly if you wish and not several. One time, I had RC2 and 4-5 Nightly builds installed on my PC without any troubles.
I think that you can use a nightly for your test. Or wait for the RC3. Should not be so far... :)
Best wishes,
Michael
matthewjumpsoffbuildings:
Awesome - im looking forward to it very much.
matthewjumpsoffbuildings:
any news?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version