Versioning for the new year

[Monsto Brukes]

So I'm trying to determine how to version the next release. Using dates will really only work until july, and then there will be potential to be confusing if there are still releases. 

 

I was considering continuing to use the date and then crossing that bridge when we get to it... as long as there's not a release on the same dates, there won't be a problem.

 

I was also considering just keep incrementing . . . any january release would become 13, february would be 14, etc. 

 

then there's the whole "start over with normal version numbers" and just increment every release... v1, v2, v3, etc.

 

I'm not the developer, i'm just trying to organize things a bit to help keep things straight. Maybe i'll put a poll up if there's enuf discussion.

 

Thoughts?

[Groovtama]

2014-MM-DD would be the least confusing one in my eyes or shorter 14MMDD.

 

[Guest Mogie56]

it's current "stable" version. any versions beyond that MM-DD-2014 <--no confusion.  like "HDTPE-01-20-2014" (a little less typing) note it on the main page so everyone knows how it's going to be laid out for the new year. just a thought.

[Redflyingmonkey]

I think the whole start over with normal version names is appropriate, it goes directly to the point. Adding -Stable and -Latest worked for me too before, I mean it's hard to not understand what it means uh 

[Vioxsis]

MM-DD-YYYY <---- always confuses me..

 

I'm with groovtama YYYY-MM-DD international standard date.

[Redflyingmonkey]

MM-DD-YYYY <---- always confuses me..

 

I'm with groovtama YYYY-MM-DD international standard date.

That's the international standard date ? Drats, I guess it's true what they say about us french being purposely annoying.

DD-MM-YYYY here bahaha

[Groovtama]

Normal file ordering is always perfectly ordered by:

Year -> Month -> Day

That's why it's standard

 

Examples

 

 

Month -> Day -> Year

10-22-2015

10-23-2015

10-28-2014

11-22-2015

Not perfectly ordered

 

Month -> Day -> Year

22-10-2015

22-11-2015

23-10-2015

28-10-2014

Not perfectly ordered

 

Year -> Day -> Month

2014-28-10

2015-22-10

2015-22-11

2015-23-10

Not perfectly ordered

 

Year -> Month -> Day

2014-10-28

2015-10-22

2015-10-23

2015-11-22

Perfectly ordered

[Vioxsis]

That's the international standard date ? Drats, I guess it's true what they say about us french being purposely annoying.

DD-MM-YYYY here bahaha

That's how we ordered it in Britain as well.

 

The French are still annoying but its the Americans that take the biscuit when it comes to date order...

[Redflyingmonkey]

 

That's how we ordered it in Britain as well.

 

The French are still annoying but its the Americans that take the biscuit when it comes to date order...

 

 

Yeah, I don't think I'd truly be a man if I wasn't European ... (Did he really say that ? Oh no he din't OH NOES HE DIN'T)

 

 

 

[imacarl]

 

 

I think it should be similar to driver naming scheme where its:

 

YY.MM.DD

 

so say january 20 2014 would be HDT 14.1.20 or 14.01.20

 

I think its slightly more organized this way because it keeps the first digit constant on a yearly basis, so its like yearly revision. if the day was put before the month, then to newcomers, it would be confusing to know which driver is newer e.g  14.20.01 and 14.19.02

 

the latter is technically more new since month in that order is last if day is month is first, the only real confusion is when you get into october-december in numberschemes, which is fixed with the 0's to some extent

 

in this way, the number scheme doesnt drastically change having the day or the month in the beginning, and the num bers correlate to newness for the most part orderly

[tase]

I like keeping it like how it is right now, just adding the year in. Anything else makes it complicated to keep track of the versions.

 

14-01-20 or 20-01-14 or 20-01.14 or 2014.01-20 or 2014.0120

[Pinute]

just chiming in in support of YYYY-MM-DD for sorting purposes. This American annoys his co-workers enormously when using this at work (and enjoys the annoyance immensely )

[Monsto Brukes]

Personally, i'm leaning towards restarting from v1 (or v9 as the case may be). serializing it simplifies everything.

 

There has actually been some confusion based on the dates. sometimes people that are new don't realize there's a difference between versions that have close dates. Also, there were a couple times when there were multiple posts in a day. I've missed them.

 

14-02-15 Latest (for example) doesn't really help IMO. v5 Stable is excruciatingly clear.

[blabba]

agree with groovtama on the dating scheme,

 

reason why I am against a v1, v2 setup is because in those setups people are used to higher number = best version/new features even if it says clearly that it's experimental or whatever.

 

and also because the stable versions tend not to be the latest versions, people who want a stable version will associate it as a 'downgrade' and inherently see it with negative bias.

 

also expect a lot of requests for changelogs

 

I liked the dated versions because it let you know that the entire concept is sorta experimental and you shouldn't install it unless you completely understand that.

[Monsto Brukes]

agree with groovtama on the dating scheme,

 

reason why I am against a v1, v2 setup is because in those setups people are used to higher number = best version/new features even if it says clearly that it's experimental or whatever.

 

and also because the stable versions tend not to be the latest versions, people who want a stable version will associate it as a 'downgrade' and inherently see it with negative bias.

 

also expect a lot of requests for changelogs

 

I liked the dated versions because it let you know that the entire concept is sorta experimental and you shouldn't install it unless you completely understand that.

 

That makes sense. . . alright how about v13, keeping the 'primary' number increment from the moment of changeover, then advance from there. v12-6, v12-29, v13, v14, etc.

 

As far as changelogs are concerned, aint none. ocassionally we get lucky, but for the most part there aren't changelogs.