Wesnoth 2.0

[mm_]

Just out of interest: When is Wesnoth 2.0 due to appear?

[Lizard]

Yeah, I thought about that, too.
I know that currently we are at 1.6 and 1.7, and I'm pretty sure the next version will be called 1.8, 1.9 being the dev version. but what will happen after that point? Will we get Wesnoth 1.10 or Wesnoth 2? (I would guess 1.10 since 2 would be a mayor version change - but I don't know anything about that.)

[thespaceinvader]

Almost certainly 1.10 will follow 1.8/9.

There is no current timetable for releasing a Wesnoth 2.0 as far as I am aware.

[Araja]

1.10?

That just sounds wrong but...meh.

[lotsofphil]

1.10?

That just sounds wrong but...meh.

You can call it 1.A

[Ken_Oh]

It's funny how people think 2.0 follows 1.9.

[thespaceinvader]

Remember, it's not a system of decimals, much as it may appear like one

[Gambit]

Mathmatically speaking isn't 1.10 the same as 1.1? If you're using such small increments you should do 1.10 - 1.19 before moving on to 1.2.

Versionally speaking the jump from 1.x to 2.x or 2.x to 3.x is made when something incredibally mind blowing is added. Or something big that people have wanted forever.

The only person who really knows is Dave I imagine.

[lmelior]

It's a pretty typical numbering scheme in open source software development. Even Firefox has version numbers like 3.0.13. Don't think of it as a decimal (which doesn't make sense anyway since there are two periods in the version number).

The roadmap has a little discussion on what 2.0 should be. I don't think the jump to 2.0 will be as major a step as you think, since all of the 1.x development releases are working towards that. The code will slowly become more modularized and the unwanted SDL dependencies will be removed, and one day Dave will realize that it somewhat resembles his vision for 2.0 and change it.

EDIT:
I didn't mean that last to sound like a knock on Dave, I merely meant that how things turn out rarely matches up perfectly with how you envisioned it, especially with a project as big as this.

[thespaceinvader]

Mathmatically speaking isn't 1.10 the same as 1.1? If you're using such small increments you should do 1.10 - 1.19 before moving on to 1.2.

Remember, it's not a system of decimals, much as it may appear like one

Versioning does not count the same way as decimals. The second number is a major version number, and could concievably continue counting up indefinitely as we continue to make gradual improvements rather than radical changes. However, Dave of course has the final say, and he has spoken on the topic before. But I can't find it, since evidently 'version' and '2.0' are terms too common to search.

>.<

[TheGreatRings]

We could always just leave it at 1.8 (I think 1.4 was arguably better than the new 1.6 version).

[thespaceinvader]

Highly unlikely, since there is still a lot to be done following 1.8 (which is, I am given to understand, tentatively due for release in the next month or two, but don't hold me to that ), which necessitates a 1.9, and then another future stable release, probably 1.10

[Dave]

Interestingly I'm using Linux 2.6.28. I guess some people need to go tell them that they need to go back to math class and then rename it 2.8.8

Then, my IP address is 71.164.168.177. Anyone care to tell me what that should actually be?

David

[Speedbrain]

I used to work for a software company in QA. I'm pretty sure most software follows the same numbering idea. We had version 3.6.8, then 3.6.10 up to 3.6.18 before we started on the 3.7.2 version. The odd numbers between the stable releases were the development versions, the same way Wesnoth seems to work.

I am by no means an expert, but the numbering makes sense to me.

[silene]

Then, my IP address is 71.164.168.177. Anyone care to tell me what that should actually be?

Naturally, that should be 2002:47a4:a8b1::0.