Post by @cm0002@infosec.pub

@FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · Feb 28

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.

1077

76

0

molten_boron

@molten_boron@sh.itjust.works · Feb 28

Thread reply

Woosh

17

0

Pyro

@Pyro@programming.dev · Feb 28

Thread reply

But are you proud of that large change?

14

2

0

FiniteBanjo

@FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · Feb 28

Thread reply

If I were the author of GIMP I wouldn't be B'DUM'TSH

4

76

0

hperrin

@hperrin@lemmy.ca · Feb 28

Thread reply

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.

9

0

VibeSurgeon

@VibeSurgeon@piefed.social · Feb 28

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.

1068

75

0

anton

@anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone · Feb 28

Thread reply

You have done something, that it's worth breaking backwards compatibility over.

64

2

0

Saapas

@Saapas@piefed.zip · Feb 28

Thread reply

Yeah I just forgot how the old stuff worked

1085

75

0

sunbeam60

@sunbeam60@feddit.uk · Feb 28

Thread reply

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.

21

1

0

Donkter

@Donkter@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Thread reply

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.

7

0

jaybone

@jaybone@lemmy.zip · Feb 28

Thread reply

Python agrees.

7

0

ruuster13

@ruuster13@lemmy.zip · Feb 28

Thread reply

Sir...

1

0

uncommoncorvid

@uncommoncorvid@piefed.blahaj.zone · Feb 28

minecraft being on 1.21.11 (i think)

1065

74

0

shneancy

@shneancy@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Thread reply

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

27

17

0

palordrolap

@palordrolap@fedia.io · Feb 28

Thread reply

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.)

12

10

0

toynbee

@toynbee@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Thread reply

You haven't accounted for 3002.

6

2

0

sip

@sip@programming.dev · Feb 28

Thread reply

yeah, minecraft version will be the next y2k

1

0

shneancy

@shneancy@lemmy.world · Mar 01

Thread reply

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

1

0

grrgyle

@grrgyle@slrpnk.net · Feb 28

Thread reply

Minecraft II is called Hytale

1

5

0

ilinamorato

@ilinamorato@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Thread reply

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.

10

4

0

blamster19

@blamster19@programming.dev · Feb 28

Thread reply

Minecraft recently changed its versioning scheme so the next release will be Minecraft 26.

Minecraft’s new version numbering system

We’re making changes to version numbering in Minecraft. Now the version number will be based on calendar year, e.g. “26” for 2026, followed by the release number. We hope this'll make it easier to distinguish major releases from patches or hotfixes. Find out more in this article!

https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/minecraft-new-version-numbering-system

7

4

0

ilinamorato

@ilinamorato@lemmy.world · Mar 01

Thread reply

Officially and under the hood it's still 1.26, actually. At least on Bedrock.

2

0

‹Hexa«Back›

@HexaBack@lemmy.blahaj.zone · Feb 28

Thread reply

well that's a disappointment

2

0

Boomer Humor Doomergod

@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Shame-antic versioning

125

0

NeatNit

@NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de · Feb 28

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.

https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html

The Linux Kernel Archives - Releases

https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html

108

8

0

Kilgore Trout

@kilgore_trout@feddit.it · Feb 28

Thread reply

And «too big» for Linus is around 20.

38

0

grrgyle

@grrgyle@slrpnk.net · Feb 28

Thread reply

See that's totally logical, but it makes more human sense than computer sense.

22

0

Midnitte

@Midnitte@beehaw.org · Feb 28

Thread reply

It's logical if Linus has some numbers autism

19

3

0

CanadaPlus

@CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · Feb 28

Thread reply

Hmm, guy who wrote his own kernel because he didn't like the ones that existed. I'm sure he's totally neurotypical. /s

16

0

sip

@sip@programming.dev · Feb 28

Thread reply

idk for me it's easier to rember ex xdna was merged on 6.14 than 2.253

6

0

LadyMeow

@LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone · Feb 28

Well that explains why I’m on version 0.0.7899999999998765

92

20

0

username_1

@username_1@programming.dev · Feb 28

Thread reply

>7899999999998765 Even if a developer would make a commit every second, it would take 250 million years to reach version 0.0.7899999999998765

54

22

0

Dalvoron

@Dalvoron@lemmy.zip · Feb 28

Thread reply

Most of the mistakes they have to fix are incorrect version numbering.

71

0

LadyMeow

@LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone · Feb 28

Thread reply

AI slop bbyyyyyyy!!!!

20

2

0

BananaOnionJuice

@BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · Feb 28

Thread reply

Weak humans would use 250 million years, strong AI can slop it in 1 year. /S

10

0

Valmond

@Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · Feb 28

Thread reply

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.

16

2

0

grrgyle

@grrgyle@slrpnk.net · Feb 28

Thread reply

Wow a little bit of math is a dangerous thing

4

0

Viking_Hippie

@Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · Feb 28

Thread reply

!theydidthemath@mander.xyz

7

0

durinn

@emotional_soup_88@programming.dev · Feb 28

Thread reply

And here I was holding my breath for the legendary 0.0.7899999999998766. Thanks for ruining all my dreams.

4

0

mrgoosmoos

@mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · Feb 28

Thread reply

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

2

7

0

username_1

@username_1@programming.dev · Feb 28

Thread reply

>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!"

7

2

0

mrgoosmoos

@mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · Feb 28

Thread reply

so I actually use various different systems depending on my mood that day. maybe I add a dash, maybe I use another decimal, maybe I use alpha characters. none of it matters because they're wiped out a few hours later

1

0

🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞

@daychilde@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Thread reply

Bothers me that you wouldn't go for 1.21.1 but you got the freedom to be WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG^[just teasing with this part of my reply :)] if you want.

5

2

0

mrgoosmoos

@mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · Feb 28

Thread reply

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

2

0

grrgyle

@grrgyle@slrpnk.net · Feb 28

Thread reply

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

5

3

0

🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞

@daychilde@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Thread reply

= 0.21 ;-)

3

2

0

grrgyle

@grrgyle@slrpnk.net · Feb 28

Thread reply

Roffffl you're pure evil

2

0

jaybone

@jaybone@lemmy.zip · Feb 28

Thread reply

You need to cast that float.

6

0

PieMePlenty

@PieMePlenty@lemmy.world · Feb 28

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.

22

15

0

the_wonderfool

@the_wonderfool@piefed.social · Feb 28

Thread reply

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?

32

75

0

ilinamorato

@ilinamorato@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Thread reply

*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.

21

2

0

PieMePlenty

@PieMePlenty@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Thread reply

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.

9

0

grrgyle

@grrgyle@slrpnk.net · Feb 28

Thread reply

I like using the short hash from the latest git commit used to build, to avoid confusion among multiple devs on parallel streams

2

0

qarbone

@qarbone@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Thread reply

The philosophy is pretty straight-forward. I don't know why the world is pretending it's difficult.

2

5

0

AnarchistArtificer

@AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net · Feb 28

Thread reply

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.

3

0

qarbone

@qarbone@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Thread reply

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.

3

1

0

definitemaybe

@definitemaybe@lemmy.ca · Feb 28

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!

22

2

0

🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞

@daychilde@lemmy.world · Feb 28

Thread reply

I guess ..x. means NOTHING to you....... ;-)

4

0

osanna

@osanna@lemmy.vg · Feb 28

i thought there was gonna be some LGBTQI stuff here when i read "pride" versioning.

11

0

someone

@someone@lemmy.today · Feb 28

fucking hilarious! I needed to laugh. Thanks @cm0002@infosec.pub this made my day

5

0

ElectricWaterfall

@ElectricWaterfall@lemmy.zip · Feb 28

For the shame version isn’t updating the version number admitting there is new changes?

4

0

tackleberry

@tackleberry@thelemmy.club · Feb 28

oh yeah

1

0

Conversation (62)