1.9.1 --> 1.10.0!

There are lots and lots of new features in 1.9.1...so many, in fact, that folks asked why this new release doesn't count as a major version increase.

Based on your feedback, we've changed 1.9.1 to 1.10.0, effective as of the next deploy to the Preview grid. Please continue to report bugs, and continue to come play in Second Life Preview!

Does this mean that lighting is coming back full strength to the next patch?

More importantly, does this mean we'll have 1.10 to play around in today?

Well so much for reaching 2.0 by 2007.

Good call.

Er, 1.10 = 1.1. Anything above 1.9 should be 2.0. Basic math, this be...

Not "one point one zero"; rather "one point ten point zero point twenty-six".

You mean you didn`t notice that there is more than one dot in the "number"?

"1.10.0.26"?

"Basic Math" this hain`t. Thought y`all knew that.

Toodle-oo!

The dot is irrelevant (and confusing anyway). 1.10 = 1.1--PERIOD!

So what are we going up to then? This is getting like the Friday the 13th series... they never stop making them. I guess in a couple years we'll be to SL v1.567,675 aye yie yie

Eep, that's only if you're using regular decimals. Version numbers don't necessarily have to follow decimals.

1.9.1 --> 1.10.0 because 10 comes after 9 :P

This should indicate why SL's version numbering system is whacked...

Tell that to your IP address!

IP addresses aren't versions, however. Versions ARE based on decimals and, hence, should follow decimal format convention.

Wait wait wait...

So there were a bunch of new features enough to make it a major release - But then most of those features were removed...

So now we're advancing to 1.10, which should be more like 1.9.0.45, because of... flexprims?

It seems that the second biggest feature of 1.9.1 is it becoming 1.10?

What's 2.0 going to be... a rounder "connect" button?

I don't mean to be cynical but -come on-, there were more features between releases of 1.3.x than there are between 1.9.0 and "1.10.0".

"So many new features!" - Most of which have been pulled out and dumped. There are now *LESS* graphics options in 1.10 than there were in 1.9!

I -really- try to bite my tongue on this stuff. Because I know a lot of Lindens, and I know people at LL work pretty hard but... guys -- you cant say the thing is chock full of new features when it just plain isnt!!!

Seriously, let's go over this:

-Flexprims. (i know. huge deal. Fine, but not "tons of new features"
-Occlusion culling. (ok. new feature.)
-"Simplification" of graphics menu.

That's... -it-. New group options? Nowhere to be found. New land options? Nada. "Update your graphics driver!" Well, no, don't bother, no need.


(sigh) that's right. I forgot. we get timestamps in our history window now. I guess it -is- 1.10 after all.


I just don't get it. Neuter the thing by pulling out the new graphics engine, and replace that with an "exciting new version number!"

I'm sorry. I'm not going to do this again, but I had to vent on this one. 1.9.1 was *GOING TO BE* one of the best steps forward in SL since 1.2.

Instead, progress is hitting a wall - but version numbers sure aren't.

Right after the Beatles get back together, yes.

Meanwhile, I'll leave you all with a memory of what could have been.

O, 1.9.1, we barely knew ye:





Except... there aren't anymore.

Eep:

Diablo 1.10 patch
ENZYME: 2.5.1.10
Treo™ 700w Updater 1.10
FeedDemon 1.11
Audio Test Version: 1.10
World of Warcraft 1.10 Patch

1.10 (nee 1.9.1) features the following improvements to SL:

* Flexible objects
* Hardware lighting (albeit not as exciting as the initial implementation)
* Vertex shaders (again, less exciting than the initial implementation, but still there)
* Occlusion culling
* llHTTPRequest()

Michi, there's still quite a bit to look forward to in this next major version of SL!

Boo, everyone knows that when version numbers hit 10 you turn it into a fancy X as if it was a completely new product

Usually, version numbers are made up as follows:

version.subversion.patchlevel.arbitrary_levels

All of those are independent numbers, so they are not to be viewed as decimal fractions.

1.9.1 means: "First major release, 9th sub-release, first smaller patchlevel".

Logically, the next sub-release will be "1.10", not "2.0".

Admittedly, there is no real standard for this, yet it seems to be common usage to take the major.minor.patch approach for your project. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Version

Thank you for showing more examples of version numbering lameness. That still doesn't make it correct.

Just because SOME developers have be come even MORE lazy and have forgotten basic decimal math (and, no doubt, increasing in floating point errors) doesn't mean it's the correct way to number a version, which USED to (and SHOULD) be: major.minor build # (1.9 build 10). Someone, somewhere, got lazy and simply added another "dot product" (1.9.10) but that's just incorrect. 1.9.10 would be 1.10 which would be back to 1.1. Hence, just leave it 1.9 build 10 (or even 1.9 b10).

But what irks me even more are stupid web developers who version their websites.

We'll be wanting these back at their previous coolness at some point, hopefully before the end of summer. Or even better, if you could slip them into the debug menu somewheres so people who COULD use them can enjoy them until a later date (and also as inspiration for others to upgrade their video cards)....


Too true! And I imagine this would solve Eep's problem with 1.10 being a valid version number to everyone but him.



Well I won't argue your version numbering beliefs, because I agree with you that logically going up from 1.9 you SHOULD go to 2.0, however versioning websites is important in case you make a revision that is screwy and need to revert to a previous, stable version. Your argument against versioning web pages also argues against versioning program code for the same reason.

Websites aren't apps. There's no reason to version them. Just use dates. Reversion can take place JUST fine with dates; simply look at any wiki website. Website versions are just stupid. I could also argue the same thing for app versions...

Version numbers are not math, they are numbers

If this is wrong, can you provide a source where the definitive specification on versioning numbers can be found?

As you said yourself, IP addresses are not math. So why can the same not be true for versioning numbers?

There's no "correct" version numbering (just because something "used" to be certain way doesn't mean this is one and only way it "should" be... there "used" to be no computers, to begin with, or program version numbers for that matter)

Version indicator is generally a few numbers separated with dots and the order of importance going left-to-right. As long as these numbers increase as time goes and software develops, so you can tell at glance if the version of software is more recent than one you have, that's pretty much all that matters. Any further 'rules' attached to it, that's just varying level of anal-retentiveness...