102
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
102 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30500 readers
199 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think my point still holds. :D
I mean, no? Version numbers don't dictate the release readiness of something.
You want them to just call what they have now 1.0, before they implement the Alpha 4.0 features shown there? Because that's the gist of what you said.
Conventional version numbering (afaik) lead up to 1.0 as the release candidate.
Most often in gaming, yeah, but there are no rules. PURE CHAOS, BABY!!!
Usually yes if you use only numbers, but when you use alpha/beta/release cycles etc, it's not that uncommon to have them start from 1.0 as well.
As an example, the fifth phase of minecraft dev started with "Minecraft Alpha v1.0.0" and once it got to v1.2.6, the next was "Minecraft Beta v1.0.0". The proper Minecraft 1.0 came after Beta 1.8.1.
That was a standard that existed because of older, 'linear' SDLCs. It stopped being the case when Agile development took over. When you're using Waterfall, and all your milestones are planned out before a single line of code is written, you can do that.
Modern software development doesn't work like that, and it's silly to use nth-degree nested decimals (0.1.0, 0.1.1.2) when you can just use 1.1, 2.13, etc, and call something RC1.0 and 1.0 on release without bothering with internal version numbers or project codenames (or just keep the working version numbers anyways).