i gotta be honest with you any time a software goes from 2.9 to 2.10 instead of 3.0 i feel like a balloon deflating
if you had put some leading zeroes in there i woulda been okay with it
- they/them
- youtube.com/c/MicolitheSA
| Micolithe |
|---|
| Agender |
| 36 years old |
| Philadelphia, PA |
 |
| Last Login: 08/30/2007 |
Agender Enby, Trans, Gay, AND the bearer of the gamer's curse. Not a man, not a woman, but instead I am puppy.
I got a fat ass and big ears.
--
Yes I did the cooking mama Let's Play way back when. I post alot about Tech (mostly how it sucks) and Cooking and Music and Television Shows and the occasional Let's Play video
💖@FadeToZac
--
We all do what we can ♫
So we can do just one more thing ♫
We can all be free ♫
Maybe not in words ♫
Maybe not with a look ♫
But with your mind ♫
Youtube
youtube.com/user/MicolitheSATwitch
twitch.tv/micolitheYou must log in to comment.
in reply to @micolithe's post:
imagining a company that really doesn't want to go to 2.10 but also really isn't ready for 3.0 yet, so they end up with some wild number scheme like 2.9.9.9.4
in reply to @micolithe's post:
how do you feel about version numbers like 2.10.182?
if the precedent was set for that many digits ahead of time then its all good
the number of digits are flexible (i.e. this started at 2.10.1 and had 181 bug fixes since), but each of the numbers between the dots mean a thing (breaking_change_version.new_functionality_version.bug_fix_version e.g. 2.10.182 shows that there were 2 major changes that broke previous functionality, since then there were 10 minor additions to functionality, and since then there were 182 bug fixes that didn't change functionality).
I think it's a pretty neat system, though of course it gets complicated when people too smart for themselves get a hold of it (adding things to signify betas and release candidates, prereleases, and defining version ranges which i always have to look up a cheatsheet for, and the standard isn't well understood some so folks just do whatever).