I could scare people by mentioning that with OpenMW, our release process for 0.48 has been ongoing for eleven months as people keep finding release-blocking issues in our RC builds. Maybe we’ve just barely started waiting for the next release of Lemmy, and just don’t know it.
Life is even more tough for Lemmy devs, putting out fire left and right in the past few weeks. My concern is are they still able to earn a living when the majority of their time is spent fixing bugs in Lemmy?
I believe they work on Lemmy full time, and earn money from a grant - which I think is tied to them implementing certain features if I’m remembering things correctly.
That being said, I do hope that all of this isn’t killing their interest in Lemmy…
software has a very standardized version numbering system actually. It’s not required (eg dwarf fortress), but a lot of programmers like to use it. 0.18.1-RC.1 is actually super useful for version tracking. Friendliness is actually not the goal at all, it’s to be completely unambiguous about the stages of development.
The 0 is the major version number. Usually it reaches 1 when it’s reached a certain milestone or a change intentionally breaks compatibility with 0
.18 is the minor version number. This increases when a big patch comes through. Sometimes this can break compatibility, but there’s no real standard to decide between major and minor versions. In general, the major and minor version numbers are the only important ones for users.
The .1 is called a point version. It’s meant to indicate minor patches to the minor version. There’s almost never a risk for compatibility to break, and generally it’s unnecessary to update for a new point version.
RC.1 is very uncommon for users to know about. It stands for ‘Release Candidate’, so since it’s attached to 0.18.1 that means that the version is about to be released. It also means that the version is in active development and not ready to be released yet. Every time there’s a new RC, that means there was a bug that caused major issues.
As others have mentioned there’s a standardized versioning scheme that most developers use and that standard is semantic versioning: https://semver.org. There are other standards too and not every development team uses a standard that is externally recognized standard.
Using rc for release candidates is pretty standard. A lot of times they would have 18.1b1, 18.2b2, etc. for betas, the when they are close to releasing, it would become 18.1rc1, 18.1rc2, etc. And once no one finds any more issues with your release candidates, you rename it 18.1 and you are done.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Rules:
Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
0.18.1 has been released!
I could scare people by mentioning that with OpenMW, our release process for 0.48 has been ongoing for eleven months as people keep finding release-blocking issues in our RC builds. Maybe we’ve just barely started waiting for the next release of Lemmy, and just don’t know it.
Linux users know that pain with Kernel versions
Life is even more tough for Lemmy devs, putting out fire left and right in the past few weeks. My concern is are they still able to earn a living when the majority of their time is spent fixing bugs in Lemmy?
I believe they work on Lemmy full time, and earn money from a grant - which I think is tied to them implementing certain features if I’m remembering things correctly.
That being said, I do hope that all of this isn’t killing their interest in Lemmy…
Key point: they get money for implementing features, not fixing bugs, so I think for now they’re surviving off donations
do you want them to start making every minor bugfix release its own number like browsers do?
a finger on the monkey’s paw curls
why don’t they use a friendlier naming scheme? such as 0.18.1a 0.18.1b 0.18.2 ?
software has a very standardized version numbering system actually. It’s not required (eg dwarf fortress), but a lot of programmers like to use it. 0.18.1-RC.1 is actually super useful for version tracking. Friendliness is actually not the goal at all, it’s to be completely unambiguous about the stages of development.
The 0 is the major version number. Usually it reaches 1 when it’s reached a certain milestone or a change intentionally breaks compatibility with 0
.18 is the minor version number. This increases when a big patch comes through. Sometimes this can break compatibility, but there’s no real standard to decide between major and minor versions. In general, the major and minor version numbers are the only important ones for users.
The .1 is called a point version. It’s meant to indicate minor patches to the minor version. There’s almost never a risk for compatibility to break, and generally it’s unnecessary to update for a new point version.
RC.1 is very uncommon for users to know about. It stands for ‘Release Candidate’, so since it’s attached to 0.18.1 that means that the version is about to be released. It also means that the version is in active development and not ready to be released yet. Every time there’s a new RC, that means there was a bug that caused major issues.
You’re mostly spot on, but point updates are usually patches for security and bugs. You SHOULD take all point updates.
Because rc means release candidate. It’s the step after beta testing but before release, and (normally) isn’t meant for use by the general public.
I see, thanks for explaining
As others have mentioned there’s a standardized versioning scheme that most developers use and that standard is semantic versioning: https://semver.org. There are other standards too and not every development team uses a standard that is externally recognized standard.
You know they are desperate for patches when their version is BE: 0.18.1-rc.9-14-ge71951309
the backend is powered by glorious eggroll? :O
Using rc for release candidates is pretty standard. A lot of times they would have 18.1b1, 18.2b2, etc. for betas, the when they are close to releasing, it would become 18.1rc1, 18.1rc2, etc. And once no one finds any more issues with your release candidates, you rename it 18.1 and you are done.
I’d rather it be stable since I have no idea what I am doing.
this is exactly the content im here for, thank you