Forum :: Lounge :: Version Numbers on Misc. Apps

Ok, If this was my first visit to eoserv.net I would be confused as shit. The releases of various editors/eoserv revisions have went off on a tangent that cannot be explained. For those of you that take a previously released work (EOSERV and EOMAP) and start labeling them with some stupid system just because it sounds cool, it doesn't. For instance, EOSERV 3000 sounds great, until I unzip it and find out it is r189 with a bunch of shitty talk commands. The purpose of major/minor numbers are to show the progress of the software. Using a label such as 1.1 or 3.0 implies the software is in a completed, fully functional state and has been revised/bug-fixed since v 1.0 came out. I do not want to point fingers at anyone, nor am I suggesting the work done in these editors are anything short of quality, but I do feel as if the numbering is not useful at all. If the numbering isn't useful in some way, then drop it. You are only confusing newcomers to the community. Maybe I, or someone with some free time, could denote a list of features that is considered to be canon for a completed editor/server and use it as a medium to show a ratio of working features to complete features. Then at the very least the community would have a scale to base which software they want to use. Anyone have any suggested thoughts here? Feedback would be great.

Thank you for Ponting this out to everyone, Until now I never even noticed how messy my(and a few other's) thread's are.

I'll try to sort out my thread now, maybe even think about a name for the release, showing all of the features it currently has.

As for the list of different releases/tools I think it's a great idea. I might give it a shot if I have enough time but I'll probably never get round to it and it would take a while if I did :P

Or you could finish Vodka and release it as EOSERV ALCOHOLIC EDITION.

No but seriously, if you released Vodka whenever it was done, then people would just link to it instead of anyone else's, so why bother trying to organize soon-to-be obsolete releases?

---
May he now rest under aegis of mirage -
As the sands slowly turn to Elysian fields

Syran posted: (16th Oct 2010 10:26 pm)

Or you could finish Vodka and release it as EOSERV ALCOHOLIC EDITION.

No but seriously, if you released Vodka whenever it was done, then people would just link to it instead of anyone else's, so why bother trying to organize soon-to-be obsolete releases?

It isn't about that revision, nor the EOSERV software alone. The numbering systems are currently useless. For instance, a map editor that can edit every aspect of the .emf file with a basic GUI interface should be a version 1.0 at the very least. Right now we have some shit like 3.0 release 4. What the hell does that mean? To the rest of the world, a program with a major version number of 1 or greater means this does all the shit it is supposed to (bugs don't count... *cough* Windows *cough*). The point I am making is there should be a collaborative effort from those involved in improving existing software or developing new software to educate the eoserv.net community in terms of software completion. Sausage labeled the last official version of EOSERV 0.5.2, and from what I have seen of released builds, none have came close to 0.9.0 equivalent (were there such a thing). Using version numbers is cool. Using them properly is way cooler.

I see what you're saying. So is Vodka going to be an "official" 1.0.0 version? Or just like a 0.6.x version? Either way, with the current releases and the farthest advances servers have made, I would go as far as to say they are possibly 65-70% complete. So my version guess would range from 0.6.5 to 0.7.0. That would be the range I would label them within.

---
May he now rest under aegis of mirage -
As the sands slowly turn to Elysian fields

Nothing from me will ever be official. I don't think I could ever call Vodka 1.0. There is a slight very nitpicky issue I have with handling NPC movement a very specific way. Essentially, it is a fix that is going to require a hunk of re-write to the NPC handler. I don't know if I want to fix that or not, but I know it's there, even if it isn't apparent to anyone else.