Loading...
 
Development

Development


Stop! TikiWiki 1.10???

posts: 24

Hi there,

I'm a bit surprised to find that the developers are working on TikiWiki 1.10. This does not confirm with any version numbering method I have ever seen.

TikiWiki 1.9 = TikiWiki 1.90. You cannot now change it to what you had meant, namely 1.09. It is therefore not followed by TikiWiki 1.10, but by TikiWiki 2.0(0).

I know I'm being a pain in the arse but really... don't do 1.10. It looks silly and unprofessional.

posts: 2881 United Kingdom

Hi There

Tiki 1.10 is CVS head now. 1.nine and 1.ten follows logically to me.

Some interesting things should be arriving in 1.10 like TikiForge which is currently on mods.tikiwiki.org, A complete project management feature and a refactor of all libraries to reduce the amount of memory tiki needs to run.

Tiki 2 cant be whats planned in 1.10, we our plans for 2 arent ready yet.

Damian


posts: 24

Damian, have you ever seen a piece of software that goes from 1.90 to 1.10? Me neither, and for good reason.
1.09 -> 1.10 yes, 1.9 -> 1.10 no. It only looks logical to you because you omit the zero from 1.9. Do the same with 1.10 and you get what I'm after.

I guess it can't be helped but it really looks awkward. But I suppose it's just a name and I look forward to seeing the changes anyway. I'm a happy 1.8.3 user now.

Regards,
WillemB

posts: 6 United States

// It is therefore not followed by TikiWiki 1.10, but by TikiWiki 2.0(0).
I think what is confusing you is the period. In almost all versioning conventions the period is a delimiter and not a decimal point. Thus, 1.9 increments to 1.10 and so on until a major version release. The major version release isn’t dictated by the maturity of the minor version but rather by ground breaking changes to the software.

On the subject of tiki versioning, what are the stable and unstable branches? 1.7.9 seems to be the stable branch, but 1.8.4 is sort of stable… 1.9 RC3 seems to be a development version yet there is already talk of opening up 1.10 branch for development. What gives? I thought there are usually 2 branches open, a stable and an unstable branch. These are usually strictly separated, with even/odd minor releases signifying the stability. In case of linux kernel, even minor releases (2.2.x, 2.4.x, 2.6.x) are stable and odd minor releases are development (2.5.x, 2.7.x). This way an odd branch stays under development convention until it graduates into the next even branch, free of bugfix versions.

posts: 71 United States

The 1.7.x branch is not being worked on actively by any developers that I know of. Damian is probably the "official" maintainer of that branch. Nothing much happens here.

BRANCH-1-8 is our "official" stable branch and all bugfixes found are committed to that branch. Commit rate on this branch is slowing down as the obvious bugs have been squashed (hopefully).

BRANCH-1-9 is supposed to be in a feature freeze getting ready for release, but the freeze doesn't seem to be respected anymore. Furthermore, the Tiki leadership has decided to rewrite (before the 1.9 release) the libraries that may or may not have licensing problems when distributed with Tiki. It appears that the so-called "Release Candidate" stage is really more like a beta stage. Final release seems to be a long way off.

HEAD is where all new features are committed since BRANCH-1-9 was supposed to be frozen.

I'm not sure I really answered your questions, but I hope this helps. :-)


posts: 71 United States

WilliamB said: "I'm a bit surprised to find that the developers are working on TikiWiki 1.10. This does not confirm with any version numbering method I have ever seen."

That's surprising considering this "Major.Minor.Bugfix" scheme is the almost exactly the same as GNU/Linux's and many major open-source projects like Gnome and KDE's versioning scheme (we don't use even and odd numbers to signify stable/development versions).

The following quote sums it up nicely:
"Increments start at the base number for that number type. They continue up with no rollover. They are sorted numerically, PER number. Thus, 1.2.20 is less than 1.19.0, and 1.9.0 will never increment to 2.0.0 when it should be 1.10.0."
http://www.zenspider.com/ZSS/Definitions/Versions.html

"TikiWiki 1.9 = TikiWiki 1.90"

Nope. In Gentoo's Portage source package management system, you'll find that 1.90 is not the same as 1.9. Portage treats 1.90 as greater than 1.9.

In short, 1.10.0 indeed follows 1.9.x.


posts: 12

I have to admit, I am more confused now that I have heard this, as well. I understand correctly that 1.10 was what 2.0 would be under conventional versioning and that 1.10 is more recent then 1.9x?

This really doesn't make any sense as it is possible to have the same number, 1.1 and 1.10, but still refer to different builds.

This isn't a good idea because it is really confusing to users.

I thought 1.10 was a scheduled bugfix of a past release.

Thanks again for tiki.

posts: 71 United States

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Tiki version, like that of GNU/Linux, Gnome, KDE, is not one number, but 3 numbers combined. First number represents a major version; second represents minor version; third represents bugfix version. Major.Minor.Bugfix. Therefore, v1.10.0 is not the same as v1.1.0 just as the number 10 is not the same as the number 1. We choose not to show the trailing .0 just as Linux kernel 2.6 is not referred to as 2.6.0.

See the link I posted for an accurate (at least in my opinion) description of a versioning scheme much like Tiki's and many open-source software.
http://www.zenspider.com/ZSS/Definitions/Versions.html

And if you want evidence that this versioning scheme is not unique to Tiki, see for yourself that the latest version of the 2.4 Linux kernel is v2.4.26. v2.4.26 is a (much) later version than v2.4.3.
http://kernel.org/


posts: 2881 United Kingdom

Count to ten, then put a 1. infront of the those numbers lol


posts: 2881 United Kingdom
Wait till you see whats planned for 1.11 wink

posts: 7


You're not using the trailing .0, which is going to be a source of much confusion. You might wanna start doing so, otherwise people are going to assume you're using the old major.minor numbering system, which is probably not what you want.

Without the .0, I would assume the sequence would be 1.0, 1.10, 1.2, 1.3... 1.50, 1.51, 1.9, 2.0...

So, the current unstable version is 1.9.0rc2 and stable is 1.7.8 =)

Erik

posts: 2881 United Kingdom

1.9 is very unstable still which is why its still in RC series and isnt in final yet.

1.10 is going to be good. plenty planned for it, including a refactor of the lib/ and also some wicked new features.

ReleaseProcess110

Damian


Upcoming Events

No records to display

Menu