1011
Pride Versioning (infosec.pub)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
emoji 1
 

top 75 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 120 points 8 months ago

Shame-antic versioning

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 104 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    It's more logical than Linux's version numbering system:

    Does the major version number (4.x vs 5.x) mean anything?

    No. The major version number is incremented when the number after the dot starts looking "too big." There is literally no other reason.

    https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    It's logical if Linus has some numbers autism

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 88 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    Well that explains why I’m on version

    0.0.7899999999998765

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [+] 53 points 8 months ago* (16 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    that's with the assumption that the smallest increment was used every time

    I sometimes increment things by adding the next decimal place

    note: I am not a developer, just a dude making tools at work. but I somehow always end up incrementing something now and then from 1.21 to 1.211 because I wanted to avoid the "1.21 new actually newest" situation and bumping to 1.22 didn't make sense. it's like temporary versioning for me, WIP files

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Sub version tags make sense but for the the love of pie if you're going to use a number at least separate it from the others, like 1.21-1

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 67 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Under semantic versioning, you should really be ashamed of bumping the major number, since this means you went and broke backwards compatibility in some way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    Bump the first number when you update to a version that breaks compatibility.

    Bump the second number when you make a change that people might want to revert back from

    Bump the third number for bug fixes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 21 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Lowkey how I version number personal mini-projects and small things I roll out for my team.

    I guess more like:
    x.. "huge new feature, scope expansion, or cool shit."
    .x. "small feature, or fixing a serious bug" ..x "testing something. Didn't work. Try again +1."

    I'm not ashamed it didn't work. I swear!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (16 children)

    minecraft being on 1.21.11 (i think)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 8 months ago (15 children)

    with the current team of devs who's ethos seems to be to never touch the already well established gameplay features there will never be a minecraft 2.0

    the entire philosophy of development for that game would need to change for that to happen

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    Actually, Minecraft 26 comes out this year. They dropped the "1." and bumped the sub-version from 21 to 26 to match the year. They've also changed the way the new second tier works to be related to the quarter-year.

    26.1 is due next month.

    So yeah, there'll never be a Minecraft 2.0. The versioning no longer allows for it.

    (This doesn't rule out a game called "Minecraft II" with its own set of unrelated but identical version numbers. Minecraft II 36.1 drops in ten years. Maybe. But probably not.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    You haven't accounted for 3002.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I assume they're using (year - 2000) as the version number, which happens to match "last two digits" and will do until 2099. So any version of Minecraft released that year under the new system would be Minecraft 1002.x, not 2.x.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    honestly good for them, this tells me they realised how useless the "1.x.x" format is since they do not plan on ever having it tick up to 2.x.x, and changed it to something that allows them to convey more meaningful information

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Minecraft II is called Hytale

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    And here's me thinking it was called Vintage Story.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I thought it was Veloren

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    If there ever is a "Minecraft 2.0," they would absolutely continue developing Minecraft 1.xx in parallel.

    Honestly, props to them. They could make a huge amount of money by just moving over to a 2.0 and forcing a billion people around the world to buy the new version (and you know those people would buy it), but they aren't doing that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Minecraft recently changed its versioning scheme so the next release will be Minecraft 26.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 22 points 8 months ago* (11 children)

    I recently realized: fuck it, just have the build date as the version: 2026.02.28.14 with the last number being the hour. I can immediately tell when something is on latest or not. You can get a little cheeky with the short year '26' but that's it. No reason to have some arbitrary numbers represent some strange philosophy behind them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 31 points 8 months ago

    Tried it in the past but ultimately abandoned it, as then release numbers lost all added meaning. I can remember what happened in release 2.0.0 or (kinda) 3.5.0, but what the hell was release 2025.02.15? Why did it break this random function?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Can you immediately tell? Do you memorize the last day you released? Do you release daily? There's definitely some benefit to making the version equal to the date, but you lose all the other benefits of semver (categorizing the scope of the release being the big one). That's not a strange philosophy, it's just being a good api provider.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    The philosophy is pretty straight-forward. I don't know why the world is pretending it's difficult.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    It's usually safe to assume that If there are people who seem to find a thing difficult despite you finding it easy, it's probably difficult for them. For some reason or other, they have needs or struggles that you don't have. You don't need to understand why they struggle, just accept that they do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I fundamentally cannot agree with that take. How do you fix something if you don't know why the current thing doesn't work?

    Is the interface obtuse?

    Are the controls too manually complex to operate?

    Is the tutorial instruction flat-out wrong?

    Are they talking out off their ass about something they heard on hearsay?

    Were they taught secondhand, and poorly, by someone else on how to operate Thing?

    Please don't try to imprecisely apply soft inclusivity to technical problems. If someone only says the stairs are difficult for them, don't just change them into a slide because you accepted there needs to be change. This isn't about accomodating someone's lifestyle choices, this is (positing) dropping/adopting a standard based on vague dissent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    i took the phrase

    You don't need to understand why they struggle, just accept that they do.

    to mean that you shouldn’t assume someone is lying. they just might have different circumstance or needs. that doesn’t invalidate their experience, just that you’re solving different problems (which may not have been well communicated, and also may not even be technical problems).

    if you’re trying to solve their problems, then sure that’s a discussing… but 99% of tech conversations on the internet like this are people berating others for “not understanding” the “simple” way it’s done because it works fine for them

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Version 2.0? You mean an entirely new program, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    fucking hilarious! I needed to laugh. Thanks @cm0002@infosec.pub this made my day

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    slight disagree: proud version is actually when you become so disillusioned with your old code that you throw it all out and start again

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    For the shame version isn’t updating the version number admitting there is new changes?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    I thought the leading number was for when very large changes are made to the core software that make it unrecognizable from a previous version. Like if you changed the render engine or the user interface, or all of the network code.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    In semantic versioning the first number is for any change to a public API that is not backward compatible. It could be incredibly small, like fixing a typo, but if it changes the API your users are using in an incompatible way, you’re supposed to bump that number.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    oh yeah

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •