Discussion: FreeCAD is not ready for 1.0

[chrisb]

Chrisb wanted to have 1.0 when 0.17 was released,

You may have noted that I in no way insisted on it then, I didn't have any difficulties to change my mind on good arguments.

It seems like you are trying a new discussion tactic: "see he was wrong with 0.17, how can he be right now". But I still think this shouldn't be a discussion battle, insinuating things by taking quotes more or less out of context. And wasn't it you, who said that the transition from 0.16 to 0.17 would have been an opportunity to switch to 1.0? So please don't try to make me look like an idiot.

[vocx]

...
I see that your approach is not to give FreeCAD a chance to be perceived as a strong 3D modeling tool, which it is indeed, even more powerful than commercial counterparts.

FreeCAD already has that chance. FreeCAD is free, nobody is prevented from using it right now. If some people don't use it, it's entirely on them, not on us. We can name it FreeCAD 1000, and that won't make other people use it if it is not actually better. That's it. Show people, users and developers, show big companies that it is indeed more powerful than commercial packages, and then logically they should use FreeCAD.

Then why isn't FreeCAD adopted immediately by everybody? Because that's the reality, FreeCAD isn't as powerful as those systems. It is good enough for many personal usecases, hobby users, and small companies, but don't kid yourself thinking that it is as great and stable as Catia or SolidWorks or Revit. C'mon, calm down, you gotta be honest about that.

[vocx]

It seems like you are trying a new discussion tactic: "see he was wrong with 0.17, how can he be right now". But I still think this shouldn't be a discussion battle, insinuating things by taking quotes more or less out of context. And wasn't it you, who said that the transition from 0.16 to 0.17 would have been an opportunity to switch to 1.0? So please don't try to make me look like an idiot.

This is literally a discussion, it's in the title of the thread. I only mentioned that because easyw-fc mentioned that you were right in the past. Exactly when? Yes, the transition from 0.16 to 0.17 was an opportunity to make a big break in functionality and even in numbering; it didn't happen, so now it's not the time. Now it's the time for developing further and not rushing to a 1.0 version when there are still big changes incoming.

[easyw-fc]

Then why isn't FreeCAD adopted immediately by everybody? Because that's the reality, FreeCAD isn't as powerful as those systems. It is good enough for many personal usecases, hobby users, and small companies, but don't kid yourself thinking that it is as great and stable as Catia or SolidWorks or Revit. C'mon, calm down, you gotta be honest about that.

YOU gotta to be honest!
I didn't say FreeCAD is as powerful and stable as the CADs you named, but simply it is powerful and stable enough to compete with many commercial sw.
PLEASE STOP manipulating the conversation insinuating things by taking quotes more or less out of context! (as others already noted)
You should stop posting at all IMO.

[chrisb]

I lock this conversation for a while to prevent it from getting too personal. There seem no new arguments in sight.

[chrisb]

I have unlocked this topic after a private chat with bernd. One worldwide lockdown is enough. Locking wasn't even up to my own standards, because I have participated myself in the discussion, thus I should have asked another moderator to moderate it.

I still hope that we will continue with this topic at the usual high level of this forum.

[ezzieyguywuf]

I'll be honest, I've only skimmed this thread, but I do really think vocx has the right idea.

Thank you! Why did you hide for some many months only to reappear so suddenly?

I started messing around trying to write my own CAD kernel in Haskell, then stopped doing that and got sidetracked on some other projects

I got corona-bored recently so decided to check in on you lot.

My personal idea is not a single milestone, whether that is the topological naming solution, or an official assembly workbench. It's a combination of things, including more stable user documentation, and programming documentation for all workbenches.

But we will never have an agreement of what needs to happen for reaching 1.0 as long as we don't have a roadmap. With no plan, no roadmap, it is hardly possible to decide what is going to take to reach 1.0. This is one of my biggest complaints. We cannot move to 1.0 when we have not even defined what that means. One or two people have their personal opinions, but that does not make consensus.

(I added the emphasis) Again, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Someone in here said it in a later post, though, without a de facto leader or governing body to make certain choices and provide guidance, I don't think we'll reach a consensus on a topic like this that is by its very nature rather subjective.

[bernd]

there are people around who do not want to jump to 1.0 they would like to jump to 0.91 as inkscape did! Never forget about them because all this would be possible from 0.91 too.

[ezzieyguywuf]

there are people around who do not want to jump to 1.0 they would like to jump to 0.91 as inkscape did! Never forget about them because all this would be possible from 0.91 too.

My opinion on 0.91 is that it doesn't really accomplish anything. v0.91 conveys just about the same information as 0.20. In fact, it actually provides misleading information - it suggests that there have been 90 previous release candidates, when in fact there have not.

[fc_tofu]

there are people around who do not want to jump to 1.0 they would like to jump to 0.91 as inkscape did! Never forget about them because all this would be possible from 0.91 too.

In terms of Semantic Versioning, the "." in version number is not decimal point (but as separate point), and version number is not math number. As math number, "0.1","0.10"and "0.100" are same value. But as version number, they are quite different.
In version number "0.100", major version number "0" and minor verison number "100" (one hundred) are integers connected with "." (as separate point). It is not math carry relation between them, so no matter how many increments of minor number won't help raising major number.

In history, FreeCAD arrived at v0.9. After that, the following version was v0.10, not v1.0. So, in the future, following 0.99/0.999 might be 0.100/0.1000, so long as the conditions of major version increment has not been satisfied. If finnaly we reached 0.100 from 0.91, do you think another jump to 0.911 is needed?

I understand and appriciate your passion. I donnot object minor version jump, just feel it not as meaningful as it seems. Sorry.