Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Jan 2009 18:41 UTC
KDE The release of KDE 4.0 was not a smooth one, and left a number of users a bit disgruntled. Still, the release showed so much potential that it was oozing out of every pixel. KDE 4.1 improved significantly in many areas of concern, but it wasn't yet ready for everyone. With today's release of KDE 4.2, the KDE4 vision is ready to face not only developers and enthusiasts, but every users. We have taken a look at the release candidate for KDE 4.2, and we have a short interview with KDE's Aaron Seigo.
Thread beginning with comment 346201
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: FLAME ON!
by Daniel Borgmann on Fri 30th Jan 2009 10:10 UTC in reply to "RE: FLAME ON!"
Daniel Borgmann
Member since:
2005-07-08

The version number 1.0 generally stands for "the first stable and feature-complete release". Changing this expectation for every following .0 release to the opposite seems extremely odd and counter-intuitive to me.

If you redo everything and don't have parallel stable/development release numbers, the only versioning scheme that makes sense to me is to give the whole thing a new name, possibly including a number. E.g. "KDE 4" version 0.1. Commercial projects often do that, and I don't see why not.

Nobody expects a .0 release to be flawless, but it definitely shouldn't be a beta version either.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: FLAME ON!
by PandaMine on Sat 31st Jan 2009 00:53 in reply to "RE[2]: FLAME ON!"
PandaMine Member since:
2009-01-29

No it doesn't, and it rarely has (in the FOSS world). If you actually read what people have said in the comments, x.0 releases have never been "stable" (the only exception being 1.0) . Whether this be gnome 2.0 or any other piece of software, x.0's have always meant the software has been remade or rewritten so therefore don't expect it to be stable

Because you put a label of x.0's being stable doesn't mean the developers should follow that model

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: FLAME ON!
by Daniel Borgmann on Sat 31st Jan 2009 15:51 in reply to "RE[3]: FLAME ON!"
Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

"(the only exception being 1.0)"

Which was my point. And no, GNOME 2.0 was not meant to be an unstable release, there has been a separate branch for this purpose (I believe it was 1.99 or something like that). Yes, .0 releases always tend to be unstable (GNOME 2.0 definitely was) because they are young, all I am saying is that I find it counter-intuitive and rather misguiding to assign a different meaning to 1.0 than to every other .0 release.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: FLAME ON!
by akulkis on Sat 31st Jan 2009 02:59 in reply to "RE[2]: FLAME ON!"
akulkis Member since:
2008-10-21

The version number 1.0 generally stands for "the first stable and feature-complete release". Changing this expectation for every following .0 release to the opposite seems extremely odd and counter-intuitive to me.

If you redo everything and don't have parallel stable/development release numbers, the only versioning scheme that makes sense to me is to give the whole thing a new name, possibly including a number. E.g. "KDE 4" version 0.1. Commercial projects often do that, and I don't see why not.

Nobody expects a .0 release to be flawless, but it definitely shouldn't be a beta version either.



and that's why you use qualifiers, like "alpha" "beta" and "developer's release"... you moron3.0.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: FLAME ON!
by Daniel Borgmann on Sat 31st Jan 2009 15:54 in reply to "RE[3]: FLAME ON!"
Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

Yes that is one possibility, Jerk 1.0.

Reply Parent Score: 2