[Discussion] Versioning

[eezstreet]

So it seems that we're a bit screwed up when it comes to versioning.

 

@@Darth Futuza insists that we use 1.45 as a version number because that's what JKG was using prior to going open source. I wanted to mark the first release after going open source as being 1.xx, with 1.01 as being the new version. But our GitHub goes by Revision numbers.

 

How about a compromise? Revision 1 (which is what is done already) is version 1.1.x (with x being # commits after milestone has been reached), and when Revision 2 is complete, it will be version 1.2.0 (and any commit afterwards will increment the last number)

 

 

[Stoiss]

Go for it @@eezstreet, it was me in the days who putted the 1.45 version number, becours of the version  there was before that, but there was some good progress in that version we used to have so it was the reason i putted it like that, but reversion is fine by me if its give a better track on what version we are on

[Futuza]

Sure sounds fine.

 

X.y.z

Where x = Major version, Eg coop is version 2, LMO is version 4 etc.

Y = Milestone/revision Eg: Milestone 4 involves fixing/completing lightsabers

Z = Minor version, increased every release/patch, but not every commit

 

Each commit changes the git hash #, so we don't need increases for just individual commits.

[ooxavenue]

When you commit

versionNumber++;

gg

 

WoW uses Expansion#.Major#.Minor#(7.3.1) and a build number, which is basically just a number that gets +1 everytime a change is made public, which i believe is more for developers to keep track of hotfixes, while the first set of number is to keep track of what content is intended for changelogs and public info.
Not trying to make a point, but just giving ideas.