OpenMW 0.37.0 (?)

[psi29a]

Here is a screenie of AoA exterior were the FPS is 14fps and you see how much of an impact the physics subsystem has on performance.

[FiftyTifty]

Probably is just a band-aid, rather than an actual fix, but wouldn't using the Bullet 3.0 OpenCL branch remedy the issue?

[Zini]

So does this mean 0.37 is going to take longer then? No worries if so. 0.38 be the C++11 release?

Yeah 0.37.0 will take longer. It looks pretty good already, but the OSG version is not 100% ready for prime time yet and with the merge, we can't do another OGRE version.

I would expect the move to C++11 in 0.37.0. Its actually not that big of a deal.

[charlieg]

Minor suggestion. Since the OSG merge is a rather big moment for the project, and somewhat signifies entering the home straight in terms of development goals for 1.0 (at least, it enters the horizon), why not do a more major version number bump to signify this e.g. 0.40 or 0.50?

[jirka642]

why not do a more major version number bump to signify this e.g. 0.40 or 0.50?

I don't think that version numbers works like that, or at least it shouldn't...

[raevol]

So excited for this release now...!

EDIT: Oh, a heads up that I am going to be ridiculously busy until July 13th. I don't think the release will be ready before then, but wanted to make sure to say something! Performing with my team in Las Vegas this weekend, coming back and taking 2 tests, and then working Comic Con the weekend after. It's a tough life.

[charlieg]

why not do a more major version number bump to signify this e.g. 0.40 or 0.50?

I don't think that version numbers works like that, or at least it shouldn't...

Version numbers work however you want them to work. They are completely arbitrary. The main point is to convey some kind of relevant status for the release. A bad example is Firefox (38.0?) and a good example is Ubuntu (14.04 for 2014-Apr). Some projects are far too conservative (e.g. Inkscape).

Is the OSG release really just another iterative release? Like 0.34 to 0.35 or 0.35 to 0.36? No, it's a huge development, a major change in direction, and a significant improvement all at once. You really should give it that kind of recognition via it's version number.

The major bump will also cause a bit of a buzz online, so it'll help with PR for the project. You might argue that this should happen regardless of the version number, but the online world is a fickle place and silly things turn heads - like a major version bump.

[HiPhish]

If I recall correctly OpenMW follows semantic versioning:
http://semver.org

The major number is only incremented when compatibility changes, the minor number when a new feature is added and the patch number when a new release makes no user-visible changes, only bugfixes. In addition, version 0.x.x means it's not done yet and compatibility can break at any point.

Bumping the minor version number from 0.36 to 0.50 makes no sense, where are the other 14 feature releases? Keep in mind that OpenMW is under version control and for someone working through the project history it will look like there is a whole bunch missing at that point.

[charlieg]

It was just a suggestion, and a minor one at that. Still, I think you're making up an issue here:

Bumping the minor version number from 0.36 to 0.50 makes no sense, where are the other 14 feature releases? Keep in mind that OpenMW is under version control and for someone working through the project history it will look like there is a whole bunch missing at that point.

No it wouldn't. Anybody sufficiently interested in the project history would follow A) the commit logs and B) the announcements / changelogs - all of which would make it perfectly clear why such a big version bump was used.

Or they would ask on the forums where some OpenMW-ite would tell them.

I would humbly suggest that PR and eyes on the project are bigger priority than a small chance somebody might momentarily not understand what happened.

Hey, in the end it's the development that matters anyway.

[psi29a]

I smell marketing...

let's just keep doing what we're doing.