You are here

Platform Version Numbering... Opinions Sought

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 12 min 15 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Platform Version Numbering... Opinions Sought

If you haven't tried the current Platform 1.2 RC 3, please do so here:
https://portableapps.com/node/18315

As you can see, I added renaming and hiding to the 1.2 release because I had the time and wanted to get it out there. I'm going to polish it up and post it tomorrow.

But I'm thinking of mentioning that it's just a quick release due to CeBit and then pushing ahead with the followup 1.5 as planned. The only difference is that I'm thinking of taking an extra week on 1.5 and trying to get more translations done to get more of the GUI up. In that case, I'm thinking of calling it 2.0 as it'll have the theme switcher as well as renaming and hiding, run on start, run on exit, etc. If I do that, it might make sense to call 1.2 -> 1.5 as a kind of midpoint marker.

Then we'd start on the next release which would add in advanced theming (form layout changes and stuff), better truecrypt integration, categories, user customizable themes, etc. And that would be called 3.0.

Thoughts?

Jimbo
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 4 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-12-17 05:43
I'd tend to agree

Major version number bumps are often associated with huge rewrites or feature additions, the latter of which could certainly apply here, but also with fundamental changes to configuration and backward compatibility.

While virtually the entire thing is fully compatible from version to version, the changes to the theme engine are likely to mean that themes are only compatible with certain versions, and not others, and it would be a lot easier for end users if a downloadable theme was "v3.x compatible" rather than "works with v2.0 - v2.1.4", and might just possibly cut down on some of the support questions...

Also, of course, bumping the major version number reflects just how much work you and the devs put in around here Wink

onestoploser
onestoploser's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 2008-06-23 16:09
I agree that 1.2 should be

I agree that 1.2 should be renamed 1.5, and the next release (1.5) be renamed 2.0. Not only is it appropriate (as Jimbo said), but it makes it a little less confusing for new users IMO.

José Pedro Arvela
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 hours ago
Joined: 2007-07-10 07:29
Uhh... Ok.

I agree with the version bump. Firefox 3.1 will also be bumped to 3.5 for its major features, so I think it is ok to make the bump here regarding the major features shown. And I don't think I need to add any more info to this comment as it is all clear and I agree.

Tim Clark
Tim Clark's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 years 10 months ago
Joined: 2006-06-18 13:55
It makes sense

It makes sense,

There is enough difference between the current 1.2 and the 1.1 that I never liked calling it 1.2 in the first place.

Make 1.2=1.5 and proceed from there.

Tim

Things have got to get better, they can't get worse, or can they?

Gizmokid2005
Gizmokid2005's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-01-17 19:24
I agree with the progressive numbering

You have added too many features to make this a 1.2 release. Not to mention the amount of time and work you put into it.

Call this release 1.5, make the (old) 1.5 -> 2.0. Continue from there. I see no reason to call this 1.2

Smile

OliverK
OliverK's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-03-27 15:21
leave it as 1.2 while you're

leave it as 1.2 while you're doing the candidates. Then call it 1.5 on release :D.

And thanks for the new features.

Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world

Log in or register to post comments