RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled
  1. Chat
  2. Useful links
  3. Polls

Featured content

version numbers

This discussion is connected to the gimp-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

4 of 4 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.
version numbers Carol Spears 18 Jun 17:41
  version numbers Owen 19 Jun 05:40
   version numbers Patrick McFarland 19 Jun 06:29
   version numbers Tino Schwarze 19 Jun 08:03
Carol Spears
2003-06-18 17:41:20 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

version numbers

i use debian. debian seems to use what ever freaking version number they would like to. lets talk about that instead.

maybe we can jump it up to 2 simply because everyone seems to be involved again :)

carol

Owen
2003-06-19 05:40:17 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

version numbers

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:41:20 -0400 Carol Spears wrote:

maybe we can jump it up to 2 simply because everyone seems to be involved again :)

Follow Mr Knuth's technique
Call this one 1.4 which would be followed by 1.41 then
1.414 ... 1.4142136 ad infinitum

This has the advantages of

a. being the square root of 2, the number so many want b. The next version number will always be known..

And when GEGL comes along, this will be an exponential jump, so the numbers will begin at 2.7 (which will the version of GTK+ at the time) 2.71 ... 2.7182818

It's a cold, foggy grey miserable day...not much else to do :-)

owen

Patrick McFarland
2003-06-19 06:29:45 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

version numbers

I say we just use 2.0 for the first stable tree using GEGL. This entire argument sucks, imho. The first stable tree using GEGL has been called 2.0 for so long, why call it anything else now?

It isnt about GTK2, or about Gnome2, or about any thing else. Its just what someone started calling it, and it stuck. And yes, maybe its useless version number bloat, but who cares? Gimp has been 1.x for so long now, and GEGL is a huge step in gimp's development. When you change this much in a product, you up the major version number.

On 19-Jun-2003, Owen wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:41:20 -0400 Carol Spears wrote:

maybe we can jump it up to 2 simply because everyone seems to be involved again :)

Follow Mr Knuth's technique
Call this one 1.4 which would be followed by 1.41 then
1.414 ... 1.4142136 ad infinitum

This has the advantages of

a. being the square root of 2, the number so many want b. The next version number will always be known..

And when GEGL comes along, this will be an exponential jump, so the numbers will begin at 2.7 (which will the version of GTK+ at the time) 2.71 ... 2.7182818

It's a cold, foggy grey miserable day...not much else to do :-)

owen

Tino Schwarze
2003-06-19 08:03:13 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

version numbers

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:40:17PM +1000, Owen wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:41:20 -0400 Carol Spears wrote:

maybe we can jump it up to 2 simply because everyone seems to be involved again :)

Follow Mr Knuth's technique
Call this one 1.4 which would be followed by 1.41 then
1.414 ... 1.4142136 ad infinitum

Important: Never round up that last digit! Or the next version will be considered an earlier version - e.g. this would break RPM version number checking (1.41421356 < 1.4142136).

It's a cold, foggy grey miserable day...not much else to do :-)

After all, we could drop that number and use the number of digits as the version.

Bye, Tino.