1.9b = 2.0?

Post by **The_One** » 11-03-2004 19:37

Just noticed that the change log no longer shows 1.9b but 2.0 instead. (unless I've had a brainfart and it never said 1.9b)

When did this happen and does that mean a longer wait? (I don't mind either way)

Post by **DavidM** » 11-03-2004 23:52

nah, changes log is old, from times where 1.9b was not planned.

current log is in some of the latest news details
we cannot release 1.9b as 2.0 because this number requires some major stuff, and we arent that far yet.
but dont expect 1.9c

Chubbs · Post by **Chubbs** » 11-03-2004 23:55

dont expect 1.9c

we're not

-=LyNx=- · Post by **-=LyNx=-** » 12-03-2004 00:01

1.9d wins

DiStUrbeD · Post by **DiStUrbeD** » 12-03-2004 00:10

1.9z

w00t

that sounds like some kinda car...

a car BMW would make

InSaNe` · Post by **InSaNe`** » 16-03-2004 23:04

^^DIE!

I can care less what it's called 2.0 would be better because I would have to type less

CorDawg · Post by **CorDawg** » 17-03-2004 00:36

people who call it 1.10 own me
1.10 = 1.1 omgosh

priior · Post by **priior** » 17-03-2004 04:43

technically 1.10 is 9 subversions after 1.1

u have to look at "1.10" not as a float number but more like a string composed of an integer, a period, and another integer.

1.1 1.2 .... 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 etc...

CorDawg · Post by **CorDawg** » 17-03-2004 04:45

well DUH

theberkin8or · Post by **theberkin8or** » 17-03-2004 05:26

priior is a l00ser

-plær- · Post by **-plær-** » 17-03-2004 09:55

Best way to do version nos. is in 3 parts:
major.minor.patch
eg 2.4.24
A small (or even large) bugfix gets a patch increment.
A change that adds new features gets a minor level.
A change that breaks compatibility with older versions, or a complete rewrite gets a major level.

Not quite sure how that adapts to db, but it seems to me that the version referred to as 1.9b, really ought to be 1.10.

Catalyst88 · Post by **Catalyst88** » 17-03-2004 10:27

But then you have things like t'old 1.3b and 1.4b as well...

{UFO}Viper · Post by **{UFO}Viper** » 19-03-2004 23:03

theberkin8or wrote: priior is a l00ser

And berk is a l0ser

theberkin8or · Post by **theberkin8or** » 22-03-2004 01:18

^^^

viper is make me sex his sig

Guitar_God · Post by **Guitar_God** » 24-03-2004 02:29

-plær- wrote: Best way to do version nos. is in 3 parts:
major.minor.patch
eg 2.4.24
A small (or even large) bugfix gets a patch increment.
A change that adds new features gets a minor level.
A change that breaks compatibility with older versions, or a complete rewrite gets a major level.

Not quite sure how that adapts to db, but it seems to me that the version referred to as 1.9b, really ought to be 1.10.

I disagree with the 1.10... version numbers should be looked at as float numbers.

1.9b should either be 1.9.1, or it should be looked at as 1.91
I believe this method causes less confusion. (Remember Windows 3.11). (I prefer 1.9.1)