User forums > General (but related to Code::Blocks)

Suggestion Regarding Version Numbering/Releases

(1/3) > >>

BigAngryDog:
Hi there,

This is only a suggestion - so feel free to shoot me down.

Currently, releases are called RC1, RC2 etc. Presumably, RC stands for "release candidate". However, the releases do not appear to be release candidates, rather they are "alpha releases". Would a better versioning system not be along the lines of:

major.minor.patch

A transition to this system could be quite smooth, and the upcoming RC3 release could be designated: 0.3.0, and the "final" release after that could be 1.0.0.

In addition, there is a lot of excitement about CodeBlocks at the moment and people are anxious to get their hands on RC3. While many people use the nightlies, many others prefer to stick with a so called "stable" release. And because the main webpage has not changed for so long, others may be wondering whether anything is happening at all.

IMHO the time to strike with RC3 is now, and the current code base should be released as ASAP - without delay due to adding new features or tweaks. The current C::B is [more than] good enough for a pre-release release. There would be plenty of time to deal with outstanding issues and add features between RC3 and the "final" release.

Just my thoughts :)

Der Meister:
Just take a look at many threads about this in the forum. There are very good reasons why RC3 is not yet released. The main thing is: It will be feature-complete. That implies that major changes (especially changes of the sdk) are not possible any more up to the 1.5 release. And this probably wont be in the near future. Thus these changes have to be done *before* RC3 is released.

MortenMacFly:

--- Quote from: BigAngryDog on July 15, 2006, 04:53:19 pm ---This is only a suggestion - so feel free to shoot me down.

--- End quote ---
Not really, but did you do a forum search on that topic before you posted? :lol:
You are number 19473526174858 asking this question (me included in the "old" days ;-)).
With regards, Morten.

sethjackson:
Besides the above, the new build system (compiler framework) isn't finished yet AFAIK....

Game_Ender:
I agree with BigAngryDog on the version number issue.  I posted about this here, but this post is much more on topic in this thread so I will repost it:

"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/could 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 or 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.  That is why the CB team is working so hard to make sure they get this release right."

I now realize it should be major.minor.patch, not major.minor.bugfix.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page