i think there was gonna be some LGBTQI stuff here when i read “pride” versioning.
It’s more logical than Linux’s version numbering system:
Does the major version number (4.x vs 5.x) mean anything?
No. The major version number is incremented when the number after the dot starts looking “too big.” There is literally no other reason.
And «too big» for Linus is around 20.
See that’s totally logical, but it makes more human sense than computer sense.
It’s logical if Linus has some numbers autism
Hmm, guy who wrote his own kernel because he didn’t like the ones that existed. I’m sure he’s totally neurotypical. /s
idk for me it’s easier to rember ex xdna was merged on 6.14 than 2.253
Well that explains why I’m on version
0.0.7899999999998765
7899999999998765
Even if a developer would make a commit every second, it would take 250 million years to reach version 0.0.7899999999998765
Most of the mistakes they have to fix are incorrect version numbering.
I have seen people just add '9’s to it, so to not upgrade the minor, so 2.6.997 gets 2.6.9997 and so on
Some people cannot math.
Wow a little bit of math is a dangerous thing
AI slop bbyyyyyyy!!!
that’s with the assumption that the smallest increment was used every time
I sometimes increment things by adding the next decimal place
note: I am not a developer, just a dude making tools at work. but I somehow always end up incrementing something now and then from 1.21 to 1.211 because I wanted to avoid the “1.21 new actually newest” situation and bumping to 1.22 didn’t make sense. it’s like temporary versioning for me, WIP files
I do that too sometimes lol but I’m just not a fan
if it were actual releases, yeah totally. but it’s just temporary files
Sub version tags make sense but for the the love of pie if you’re going to use a number at least separate it from the others, like
1.21-1= 0.21
;-)
Roffffl you’re pure evil
1.21 to 1.211
So +190 increment is totally ok for you, but +1 sometimes “didn’t make sense”. IT DOESN"T MAKE ANY SENSE! Oh, and you can use letters. 1.21 -> 1.21a looks MUCH more explanatory for your purposes than “+1 is too harsh increase, so I’ll increase on 190!”
Under semantic versioning, you should really be ashamed of bumping the major number, since this means you went and broke backwards compatibility in some way.
You have done something, that it’s worth breaking backwards compatibility over.
Yeah I just forgot how the old stuff worked
Bump the first number when you update to a version that breaks compatibility.
Bump the second number when you make a change that people might want to revert back from
Bump the third number for bug fixes.
Except from 0.x.x to 1.0.0. That one means you’re committed to keeping the API/format stable. At least how I think about it.
Python agrees.
Shame-antic versioning
oh yeah
I recently realized: fuck it, just have the build date as the version: 2026.02.28.14 with the last number being the hour. I can immediately tell when something is on latest or not. You can get a little cheeky with the short year ‘26’ but that’s it. No reason to have some arbitrary numbers represent some strange philosophy behind them.
I used to work on a product with version numbers year.release - 2005.9 then 2005.10, though we only had about six releases a year
Tried it in the past but ultimately abandoned it, as then release numbers lost all added meaning. I can remember what happened in release 2.0.0 or (kinda) 3.5.0, but what the hell was release 2025.02.15? Why did it break this random function?
Can you immediately tell? Do you memorize the last day you released? Do you release daily? There’s definitely some benefit to making the version equal to the date, but you lose all the other benefits of semver (categorizing the scope of the release being the big one). That’s not a strange philosophy, it’s just being a good api provider.
You’re right. I’m looking at it through a very limited scope: nightly releases. I’ve been working with “latest” so long, I forgot actual versions exist.
The philosophy is pretty straight-forward. I don’t know why the world is pretending it’s difficult.
It’s usually safe to assume that If there are people who seem to find a thing difficult despite you finding it easy, it’s probably difficult for them. For some reason or other, they have needs or struggles that you don’t have. You don’t need to understand why they struggle, just accept that they do.
I fundamentally cannot agree with that take. How do you fix something if you don’t know why the current thing doesn’t work?
Is the interface obtuse?
Are the controls too manually complex to operate?
Is the tutorial instruction flat-out wrong?
Are they talking out off their ass about something they heard on hearsay?
Were they taught secondhand, and poorly, by someone else on how to operate Thing?
Please don’t try to imprecisely apply soft inclusivity to technical problems. If someone only says the stairs are difficult for them, don’t just change them into a slide because you accepted there needs to be change. This isn’t about accomodating someone’s lifestyle choices, this is (positing) dropping/adopting a standard based on vague dissent.
fucking hilarious! I needed to laugh. Thanks @cm0002@infosec.pub this made my day
Lowkey how I version number personal mini-projects and small things I roll out for my team.
I guess more like:
x… “huge new feature, scope expansion, or cool shit.”
.x. “small feature, or fixing a serious bug” …x “testing something. Didn’t work. Try again +1.”I’m not ashamed it didn’t work. I swear!
I guess …x. means NOTHING to you… ;-)
For the shame version isn’t updating the version number admitting there is new changes?
I thought the leading number was for when very large changes are made to the core software that make it unrecognizable from a previous version. Like if you changed the render engine or the user interface, or all of the network code.
In semantic versioning the first number is for any change to a public API that is not backward compatible. It could be incredibly small, like fixing a typo, but if it changes the API your users are using in an incompatible way, you’re supposed to bump that number.
minecraft being on 1.21.11 (i think)
with the current team of devs who’s ethos seems to be to never touch the already well established gameplay features there will never be a minecraft 2.0
the entire philosophy of development for that game would need to change for that to happen
Actually, Minecraft 26 comes out this year. They dropped the “1.” and bumped the sub-version from 21 to 26 to match the year. They’ve also changed the way the new second tier works to be related to the quarter-year.
26.1 is due next month.
So yeah, there’ll never be a Minecraft 2.0. The versioning no longer allows for it.
(This doesn’t rule out a game called “Minecraft II” with its own set of unrelated but identical version numbers. Minecraft II 36.1 drops in ten years. Maybe. But probably not.)
honestly good for them, this tells me they realised how useless the “1.x.x” format is since they do not plan on ever having it tick up to 2.x.x, and changed it to something that allows them to convey more meaningful information
You haven’t accounted for 3002.
If there ever is a “Minecraft 2.0,” they would absolutely continue developing Minecraft 1.xx in parallel.
Honestly, props to them. They could make a huge amount of money by just moving over to a 2.0 and forcing a billion people around the world to buy the new version (and you know those people would buy it), but they aren’t doing that.
Minecraft recently changed its versioning scheme so the next release will be Minecraft 26.
Officially and under the hood it’s still 1.26, actually. At least on Bedrock.
