[L2Ork-dev] updating cyclone

[Derek Kwan]

Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com> writes:

>     
>     
>     
>     Using "alpha" to mean you are in the stable, early stages of a
>     process that may never 
>     
>     actually be completed is confusing.
>
> It is, and, if anything, I already considered that cyclone should have
> jumped to "1.0", instead of being released as "0.3 alpha-1", and now
> the 0.3 alpha-2 is much more like "1.0.1" - perhaps we should go ahead
> and just do it, I don't know...
>
> But my only point is that our current version is just much more
> advanced and stable, fixed, and cleaned up than the earlier versions.
> You really shouldn't worry about it being "unstable" as it is now...
>
> cheers
>

I agree with the general discussion about alpha and beta here with alpha
being something only adventurous souls ready to deal with not-unexpected
bugs and kinks would want to deal with... so advanced and stable
wouldn't really be compatible with that notion of alpha, although from working
on that pdcon paper, does seems like a lot of versions that have been
called alpha or beta ended up being the versions that stuck.

i wouldn't really jump to 1.0, i think users who pay attention could
naturally then ask about what happened to 0.4-0.9. i think with a
project as old as cyclone, it's prob best to just stick with what's been
established. and i don't think it would make sense to jump numbers in
the middle of a development cycle as we are in now.

perhaps we could do something like 0.3, 0.3.1, 0.3.2, 0.3.3? we could
even tack on more decimals if we wanted although that'd prob get a
little too hard to remember =P. i've always found it a little offputting
that version numbers don't follow normal number rules, like when apple's
os 10.9 had the next version, and it went to os 10.10, that with the
fact that there's already a os 10.1 haha. 

Derek

-- 
Derek Kwan
www.derekxkwan.com