Page 1 of 2
1.9b = 2.0?
Posted: 11-03-2004 19:37
by The_One
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)
Posted: 11-03-2004 23:52
by DavidM
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
Posted: 11-03-2004 23:55
by Chubbs
dont expect 1.9c
we're not
Posted: 12-03-2004 00:01
by -=LyNx=-
1.9d wins
Posted: 12-03-2004 00:10
by DiStUrbeD
1.9z
w00t
that sounds like some kinda car...
a car BMW would make
Posted: 16-03-2004 23:04
by InSaNe`
^^DIE!
I can care less what it's called 2.0 would be better because I would have to type less
Posted: 17-03-2004 00:36
by CorDawg
people who call it 1.10 own me
1.10 = 1.1 omgosh
Posted: 17-03-2004 04:43
by priior
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...
Posted: 17-03-2004 04:45
by CorDawg
well DUH
Posted: 17-03-2004 05:26
by theberkin8or
priior is a l00ser
Posted: 17-03-2004 09:55
by -plær-
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.
Posted: 17-03-2004 10:27
by Catalyst88
But then you have things like t'old 1.3b and 1.4b as well...
Posted: 19-03-2004 23:03
by {UFO}Viper
theberkin8or wrote:
priior is a l00ser
And berk is a
l0ser
Posted: 22-03-2004 01:18
by theberkin8or
^^^
viper is make me sex his sig
Posted: 24-03-2004 02:29
by Guitar_God
-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)