HiPhish wrote: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.
Hmm, I don't think OpenMW actually follow that because the plan is that the 1.0 version should be equivalent to Vanilla Morrowind, even if it doesn't break compatibility.
Personally, since the OSG port bring OpenMW very close from the 1.0 version, and since after that version, there probably won't be more than 10 sub-1.0 releases, I think the next version number should be 0.90 . This show that OpenMW is actually well playable, because I suspect some people are still waiting for 1.0 because they think OpenMW isn't playable currently.
Version 1.0 in semantic versioning does not mean that it is incompatible with version 0.x, it means that from version 1.0 on compatibility is guaranteed for all 1.x releases. Version 0.x releases on the other hand are to be considered unfinished software, so compatibility could break between 0.x and 0.(x+1) without warning.
Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything may change at any time. The public API should not be considered stable.
Of course these rules make more sense for libraries rather than end-user applications, but I could still apply to things like save game compatibility of mod formats.
charlieg wrote:It was just a suggestion, and a minor one at that. Still, I think you're making up an issue here:
HiPhish wrote: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.
If you need to go dig through the forums to figure out why there is a gaping hole in the version tags then the idea is impractical. And what are the gains? We make the release look slightly more spectacular for about a week and then everyone forgets about it again. I say keep development and PR separate, the PR team can still make it spectacular without messing up the git tags. Did you know that the actual name of Windows 7 is Windows 6.1 internally? http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/wind ... 06f?auth=1
Automatik wrote:I think the next version number should be 0.90 . This show that OpenMW is actually well playable, because I suspect some people are still waiting for 1.0 because they think OpenMW isn't playable currently.
A better way of stating what I was getting at.
psi29a wrote:I smell marketing...
Maybe it's the aftershave!
Marketing does have a purpose though.
HiPhish wrote:Did you know that the actual name of Windows 7 is Windows 6.1 internally?
You do realise this is an example for what I'm saying - and not a defense of remaining rigid? Obviously MS felt it important enough to put out a major version number bump even though the compatibility differences were not so great.
Technically Windows 7 is Windows 7, it's just running the (Windows) NT 6.1 kernel.
Similarly, Windows 8 is running the NT 6.2 kernel.
So no, they didn't break versioning, even though they made entirely new OSes. They just chose to name the releases differently than their kernel version.
I guess if we're going to break semantic versioning then now would be an okay time, since we've yet to reach 1.0 and such don't have to follow the semver rules yet.
But I don't want to see us do that, since we've got releases now for every version from 0.7 up to 0.36.1. (Though we didn't adopt semver until 0.9 I think)
Seeing a version history suddenly jump almost 60 minor revisions between two releases - when having kept a near perfect release schedule before that - would be confusing at best.
Ace (SWE) wrote:Technically Windows 7 is Windows 7, it's just running the (Windows) NT 6.1 kernel.
Similarly, Windows 8 is running the NT 6.2 kernel.
So no, they didn't break versioning, even though they made entirely new OSes. They just chose to name the releases differently than their kernel version.
Thanks, that's what I was getting at. Since Windows is a closed-source product they can name their operating system whatever they want, they could even name it after cats or real world locations, without interfering with their internal versioning. For an open-source project the version of the source is the name of the release. OpenMW could in theory do the Microsoft thing as well and name releases after weird things, or number them in bizarre ways skipping versions (Windows 9), but what's the point? You just end up confusing people. If you really want names with meaning do what Apple does with OS X: every release has a cute name (like Leopard, Tiger, Yosemite) and a hard version number, and both are used together: OS X Yosemite 10.10.4
Maybe instead of "marketing" we can use the word "communication", but even if OSG seems a big thing for people following openMW, the average player don't really care.
He just want an game tthat he can play and that he can mod.
For now, if you have a windows computer openMW for this purpose is still not yet at the level of Morrowind.
We love openMW because of the project, the dynamics and evolution but as a game it's still not ready yet.
It's playable? yes, but vanilla Morrowind is playable too. Yes vanilla Morrowind have some bugs but there is so much documentation of how to overcome these bugs.
We have to stay realist : openMW is great/awesome... but it's still not as functionnable as Morrowind and that why it's still not yet 1.0. And for the average player it's the only thing that count.
0.37 0.40 or 0.9 it's still 0.X, it's still not 1.X, for communication purpose it makes no difference
Cramal wrote:
We have to stay realist : openMW is great/awesome... but it's still not as functionnable as Morrowind and that why it's still not yet 1.0. And for the average player it's the only thing that count.
0.37 0.40 or 0.9 it's still 0.X, it's still not 1.X, for communication purpose it makes no difference
I suppose it depends what you want to communicate.
I mean, I'm here because someone posted on Reddit saying "OpemWM is great and it's absolutely playable right now". But if I'd just seen OpenMW 0.35 (as it was) I'd have thought "it'll be ages before that's remotely usable - maybe I'll take a look next year - if it's still being developed".
I can understand if you don't want to attract wider attention until the engine is ready for beta - but then why go trawling for eyeballs on Reddit? On the other hand, if you're interested in getting more attention then bumping to something that better reflects the %completion of the project make sense.
That said, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. Your current development process seems to be working well, after all. There's a good argument for "if it ain't broke ..."
charlieg wrote: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.
We've had pretty big changes before and didn't change the version numbering system then either. We are generally not in the business of creating buzz with nothing but hot air. We've rejected shenanigans for eyeballs in the past. This team's integrity, transparency and honesty has always been one of the main reasons I loved being OpenMW's propaganda pawn.
Besides, assigning a percentage to a project says very little. How exactly would you quantify it?
Okulo wrote:This team's integrity, transparency and honesty has always been one of the main reasons I loved being OpenMW's propaganda pawn.
Woah, easy tiger. You make it sound like bumping a version number is obfuscating the truth and dishonest. It is neither. Integrity? That has little to do with it. Nobody said lie. Nobody said to do something underhand. Projects update version numbers in new ways all the time. Firefox is a great example. Was that opaque and dishonest? Was that a lack of integrity?
Look, it was a humble suggestion, nothing more - and I'm just some dude online (though I did spend several years blogging about Free software games, my claim to fame). I have nothing invested in you agreeing with me. However, let's leave the hyperbole at the door? I do object to being labelled as a corrupting influence.
Okulo wrote:Besides, assigning a percentage to a project says very little. How exactly would you quantify it?
I'm not suggesting it as a %. It's just signifying a big development step, that's all.
where some OpenMW-ite would tell them.
