1.9.1 --> 1.10.0!

No! 1.1+0.1 is not 2.0! It is 1.1+0.1=10.0!!

1.AB+ ?

ba-dum-dump....

MM

Normal html files are not apps. But add some php and whoa, they are apps! The can count, draw, they are apps. If someone makes website where you can calc numbers, it is app. Now tell me that after two days of coding a didn't made app

Yes, sorry 1.1 + 0.1 = 10.0 indeed.

*goes out to shoot herself quietly*

Well, duh. Expecially right now when upgrading to a new video card means upgrading the motherboard as well, since buying an AGP 6800 instead of hanging on until you upgrade to PCI-E and upgrade to a 7800 at the same time is a distasteful option.

And even a 6800 costs as much as a month's rent on a sim.
Parameterizing all the shader calls to use either set of shaders, and debugging both sets of shader code, would have set the release back even further.

ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128 MB AGP for less than the price of a loaf of bread (at time of posting). Likely it'll go up to about $30-40 US by the end of the auction. THIS is what I use, and it did the new shaders just fine. Sure, I couldn't turn on All Lights + Shadows, but that's a lack of RAM, not a video card issue. If your computer is so old you don't have an AGP slot, your computer is lucky it can even run the required operating system for SL, let alone SL itself. @.@

Anyone can upgrade if they take the time to go look for a bargain. Parts from two or three years ago are a drop in the bucket for a person with a job, I could make a computer with $400 that could run SL with at least 12 fps. More likely with 18 fps.

They needn't maintain the new shaders if they're in the debug menu, they're there because they're for testing. Meanwhile they can work on them in private preview in office and return with a better version that everyone can share in a later version. Meanwhile, their current shading system reinstated in the preview can go on being maintained. Either way they'll be doing debugging on two sets of shaders. I'd just like the newer, prettier ones while I wait for a set that everyone can use.

2.0: Substantial or complete rewrite of the codebase.
1.10: Some new/rewritten code, but still mostly the same as 1.9.

See? Easy! Anyone can pick up this idea in like five seconds.

Not the same thing as a TRUE application. The web browser is an application but the website is content displayed/rendered via a web browser which still controls how the website is interacted with, but it's the web browser handling everything (calls to server-side apps, etc). Websites are just interfaces.

Not only people with older hardware and/or drivers. Every mac user can't use the new shaders, in my case despite the latest drivers, a card that is more than capable of running vertex shading and a machine that's new enough to still be one of the upgrade options on the apple store website. Also people that have a really tweaked up graphics machine with the latest officially supported drivers.

You're generalising wildly. I'm happy for you that you particular set up could run it, and probably will run it happily when it's finally released. But there are more than enough people who are used to being able to run SL with everything on and getting good-amazing frame rates who were finding 1.9.1 was crippling their frame rates to justify taking the shiny things away until they can make them work *properly* for most of their user base, not just the few that happen to have the right combination of things that happen to run it well.

Vive la ATI?

You're right, it is a generalization on my part, I hadn't included Mac users into my group. But for the people that I had talked to who had significant graphical hits, either their drivers were several months old or non-standard "performance" drivers. I happen to be one of the lucky ones with such drivers (Omega Drivers 3.9.231), yet still got great performance. It seemed to me that people with the most problems had nVidia cards, or were at the least the most vocal about their problems.

I never seen a decimal with two or more dots.

That's because when version numbering initially started it ONLY had ONE (1) decimal point and counted up correctly (1.9, 2.0, etc). Now, idiotic programmers have the stupid idea to screw version numbering up too by adding multiple decimals, parentheses, and who knows what other crap to complicate an otherwise simple version numbering system that works correctly, logically, and simply.

Again, if an app has THAT many intermediary builds, its development cycle needs improving. There's really no reason to go beyond a single decimal point and a build #:

1. 1.9 build 10
   
2. 1.9 b10
   
3. 1.9 (10)
   

Please provide us with a source where we can read more about the initial start of version numbering. I'd love to see a final resolution to this discussion so it can finally rest in peace.

The source is common sense. It's pretty obvious "versioning" started out with "1", then incremented in whole numbers to 2, 3, 4, 5, etc). Then some idiot put a decimal point (and 0) in to complicate things, another idiot added another decimal point, and so on ad nauseum to the mess that exists today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control

So we all agree there is no written specification on versioning number schemes. That means, there's no rules to obey, and it's merely a matter of personal preference if you think a version numbering scheme is sane or not.

Quoting from the page you linked to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control):



I think this puts all the discussion down to: "Every programmer is free to choose the versioning number scheme they like." No rules, no specification, free for all.

I don't agree there is no written versioning spec. I simply have yet to come across it (CVS is close but it's too recent--1986--for my tastes) but haven't researched it that deeply...yet (I will if people keep pestering me about it with stupidity just to prove a spec HAS been written).

You'll note that sentence was recently added (most likely by an SLer who has either participated in this thread--or read it) right after I specifically brought it up.

There comes a point where complicated versioning is useless and unnecessarily confusing. KISS (keep it simple, stupid)

This stupidity is moving into outlines too (at least on WikiMedia websites like Wikipedia), which really just complicates/confuses things more than helping it (as on the SL History Wiki's Version 1.9.1 page which shows what happens when multiple multi-decimal versioning is combined)!

Ah! I didn't see that. Interesting turn of events And thanks for not jumping on the fact that I mistakenly took the Revision Control page as a reference rather than the correct page you pointed out

Still ... The common usage is to have the numbers independantly. Same goes for Outlining. If I have a chapter with 18 sub chapters, I'd name them 1.0, 1.1 ... 1.9, 1.10, 1.11 ... 1.18. It wouldn't make any sense to stop numbering sub chapters at 1.9, having to start a chapter 2 just because the decimal numbers don't give me more sub chapters to choose from


Ah ... the real problem there is more the fact, that one is the chapter, the other is the version. I don't see a simple solution for that. This would have happened with single version numbers, too.

Does it really matter, Eep et al? Since there is no true "standard" out there, or if there is, not as many people/groups/companies are following it, and there IS so much disparity, how can one control this? And how can one remain sane in an attempt to worry about it? It's like trying to get people to comment code in a unified fashion - good luck getting everyone to do it the same way (or even do it at all).

So just let it slide. Maybe LL does not use the best method out there, but we're all used to it for this particular app and there is no use foaming at the mouth over it.

MM

This type of outlining (decimal outlining) isn't considered formal.

Yes but it would not have been nearly as confusing if both TOC sections AND SL version builds were like they now are on the SL History Wiki's version 1.9.1 page.

Yes, Marcus, it DOES matter (to me anyway). If there's a chance LL will change its versioning system to a more intuitive, less complex/confusing one, then I feel it's worth "foaming at the mouth over it". Unnecessarily complicated versioning been bugging me for years anyway so this is as good a time as any for me to vent it all out and rant about it.

Anyone reasonably intelligent can understand this numbering system. Whence all this vitriol over something so staggeringly easy and trivial? Why rage over this "complex/confusing" system that I'm sure you can recognize and parse in a second? Why are you spending hours of your life arguing about this?

marking new version of game client "1.9 build 1" or "2.0" where it's neither a minor functionality tweak nor a significant upgrade turning it into something vastly different... is by no means "more intuitive", nor "less complex/confusing" to me, than naming it "1.10".

Please stop pushing your own preferences on everyone.

Oh, and regarding whether "decimal outlining isn't considered formal"... considered by whom? Because from what i can find "the decimal form has become the standard form in scientific and technical writing" ... so it's quite weird to see claim such de facto standard "isn't formal".

This discussion should really be taking place in General. I'm locking the thread because it cannot be moved as it is a forum specific announcement.