Yes, I agree.
Yes, I agree.
Yes, but you will complain about it! Particularly in the European Union where regulations give consumers the power to complain a lot! If you paid thousands for something, you expect it to work, and the company does provide some support.
This doc is long, but not too long compared to our discussion here....
Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable.
Version 1.0.0 defines the public API. The way in which the version number is incremented after this release is dependent on this public API and how it changes.
Patch version Z (x.y.Z | x > 0) MUST be incremented if only backwards compatible bug fixes are introduced. A bug fix is defined as an internal change that fixes incorrect behavior.
Minor version Y (x.Y.z | x > 0) MUST be incremented if new, backwards compatible functionality is introduced to the public API. It MUST be incremented if any public API functionality is marked as deprecated. It MAY be incremented if substantial new functionality or improvements are introduced within the private code. It MAY include patch level changes. Patch version MUST be reset to 0 when minor version is incremented.
Major version X (X.y.z | X > 0) MUST be incremented if any backwards incompatible changes are introduced to the public API. It MAY also include minor and patch level changes. Patch and minor version MUST be reset to 0 when major version is incremented.
Yea, I posted the same link 15 or so pages ago
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought you didn't support a version jump because it was arbitrary?vocx wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 5:38 pmI want 0.20 because it's just the natural progression. We are still working on the project. When it is really solid, with no major changes (App Link, PartDesign, TechDraw, documentation, etc.), then we can think of moving to 1.0, and this transition will not be difficult.
Bernd wants 0.9x just because. It's a bigger number, it looks "better", it looks "cool". That can't be an argument anywhere.
Well, that's the whole point of this thread. If we have a clear roadmap, with verifiable milestones, with known problems that need to be addressed, and that can be addressed while keeping the stability of the program, with a checklist of things completed, etc. Then we are much closer to release 1.0. Until then, pushing for a 1.0 version is just based on feelings, which is a terrible way of making big decisions.
This is not true at all. Why do you keep repeating this? This is not true!
wmayer wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:21 pm...
With all the recent big merges there have been many slight or big regressions here and there and also the general code quality has suffered greatly which the PVS and Coverity scans clearly show.
That's the whole point of this thread. If you can't program, and solve the problems yourself, calm down, ease your expectations a bit. If you can program, then what the hell are you waiting? Start helping out!wmayer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:43 pmOn my desktop I have four DIN A4 pages full of smaller and bigger issues and some of them are serious design flaws that must be fixed before the next release. So, I will fix the issues in the order of their importance and then we can see where we are at the beginning of next year.