Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
01.07.2023 10:59, Sven Barth via lazarus пишет: Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus schrieb am Fr., 30. Juni 2023, 15:48: 30.06.2023 16:44, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus пишет: > 30.06.2023 14:27, Martin Frb via lazarus пишет: >> On 30/06/2023 12:51, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Juha Manninen via lazarus wrote: >>> On Friday, June 30, 2023, John Landmesser via lazarus < lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote: > perhaps that should have become 3.00 ? > > Lazarus *3.99* (rev main_3_99-41-g3d8dd85474) FPC 3.2.2 > x86_64-linux-gtk2 > > You are looking at trunk, the development version. See : https://wiki.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering#Lazarus_3.0_and_newer >>> >>> You might want to add some explanation for this new versioning >>> scheme to that page. >> >> Added. > > I made some improvements, hope it is even more clear now. > >>> The graph does not help. >>> >>> From what is currently there, I don't understand neither the logic >>> nor the need of this change. >> "Need"... Well, in terms of "because it solved the issue xyz" => then >> there is no need. > > Basically, version numbering is all about "marketing". By always > increasing major version we tell to the general audience that major > release indeed contains major changes (which is always the case). > > So we solve/improve "marketing" issues. > BTW, in my opinion FPC has similar issues and will benefit from such approach to versioning too. In FPC the major number *has* a meaning, namely that there have been significant changes in the code generator. Towards the 2.x series it was the rewrite of the different backends and for the 3.x series it was the introduction of the high level code generator. The minor number is then to signify a new release with many new features on top of the same base architecture and the release number is then to differentiate between development and stable. Wow, I did not know this. Thanks for clarification. But see below. We don't follow "marketing". The main motivation behind our change was the following: versioning should reflect development workflow. We didn't have concrete criteria for differentiating between major/minor version increase. Everything else is basically a side-effect of versioning scheme simplification. Still, I have a feeling that "marketing" issues (and yes, versioning is very small fragment in this picture) are grossly underestimated. I know for sure: 1. News about major Lazarus releases felt into "mini-news" section on some news websites. 2. Users were confused about Lazarus versions (you can not believe it, but still). 3. People (general audience not following development process) simply don't understand when major version is not increased for prolonged periods (in case of FPC it is like 10 years?) and tend to think that the project is stagnating. -- Best regards, Maxim Ganetskymailto:gan...@narod.ru -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
On Sat, 1 Jul 2023, Sven Barth via lazarus wrote: Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus schrieb am Fr., 30. Juni 2023, 15:48: 30.06.2023 16:44, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus пишет: 30.06.2023 14:27, Martin Frb via lazarus пишет: On 30/06/2023 12:51, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus wrote: On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Juha Manninen via lazarus wrote: On Friday, June 30, 2023, John Landmesser via lazarus < lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote: perhaps that should have become 3.00 ? Lazarus *3.99* (rev main_3_99-41-g3d8dd85474) FPC 3.2.2 x86_64-linux-gtk2 You are looking at trunk, the development version. See : https://wiki.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering#Lazarus_3.0_and_newer You might want to add some explanation for this new versioning scheme to that page. Added. I made some improvements, hope it is even more clear now. The graph does not help. From what is currently there, I don't understand neither the logic nor the need of this change. "Need"... Well, in terms of "because it solved the issue xyz" => then there is no need. Basically, version numbering is all about "marketing". By always increasing major version we tell to the general audience that major release indeed contains major changes (which is always the case). So we solve/improve "marketing" issues. BTW, in my opinion FPC has similar issues and will benefit from such approach to versioning too. In FPC the major number *has* a meaning, namely that there have been significant changes in the code generator. Towards the 2.x series it was the rewrite of the different backends and for the 3.x series it was the introduction of the high level code generator. The minor number is then to signify a new release with many new features on top of the same base architecture and the release number is then to differentiate between development and stable. We don't follow "marketing". It might be wise to communicate or document this somewhere: either on wiki or website. I work almost 30 years on FPC, and even I didn't know this. Michael.-- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus schrieb am Fr., 30. Juni 2023, 15:48: > 30.06.2023 16:44, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus пишет: > > 30.06.2023 14:27, Martin Frb via lazarus пишет: > >> On 30/06/2023 12:51, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Juha Manninen via lazarus wrote: > >>> > On Friday, June 30, 2023, John Landmesser via lazarus < > lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote: > > > perhaps that should have become 3.00 ? > > > > Lazarus *3.99* (rev main_3_99-41-g3d8dd85474) FPC 3.2.2 > > x86_64-linux-gtk2 > > > > You are looking at trunk, the development version. See : > https://wiki.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering#Lazarus_3.0_and_newer > >>> > >>> You might want to add some explanation for this new versioning > >>> scheme to that page. > >> > >> Added. > > > > I made some improvements, hope it is even more clear now. > > > >>> The graph does not help. > >>> > >>> From what is currently there, I don't understand neither the logic > >>> nor the need of this change. > >> "Need"... Well, in terms of "because it solved the issue xyz" => then > >> there is no need. > > > > Basically, version numbering is all about "marketing". By always > > increasing major version we tell to the general audience that major > > release indeed contains major changes (which is always the case). > > > > So we solve/improve "marketing" issues. > > > BTW, in my opinion FPC has similar issues and will benefit from such > approach to versioning too. > In FPC the major number *has* a meaning, namely that there have been significant changes in the code generator. Towards the 2.x series it was the rewrite of the different backends and for the 3.x series it was the introduction of the high level code generator. The minor number is then to signify a new release with many new features on top of the same base architecture and the release number is then to differentiate between development and stable. We don't follow "marketing". Regards, Sven > -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
01.07.2023 3:13, Giuliano Colla пишет: Il 01/07/23 00:49, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus ha scritto: 2. clDark is deprecated on 23.11.2008 with a bunch of other CLX colors. All these colors are NOT present in Delphi. Your code emitted warnings at least for 10 years! Just for clarity, CLX *is* part of Delphi. It is the cross-platform component library which has been alive at least up to Delphi 7. Why force to modify user code, be it 10 years ago or last year, when those colors are just constants which become a number in code? What's the gain? No, it is not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_Library_for_Cross_Platform -- Best regards, Maxim Ganetsky mailto:gan...@narod.ru -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
Il 01/07/23 00:49, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus ha scritto: 2. clDark is deprecated on 23.11.2008 with a bunch of other CLX colors. All these colors are NOT present in Delphi. Your code emitted warnings at least for 10 years! Just for clarity, CLX is part of Delphi. It is the cross-platform component library which has been alive at least up to Delphi 7. Why force to modify user code, be it 10 years ago or last year, when those colors are just constants which become a number in code? What's the gain? Giuliano -- Do not do to others as you would have them do to you.They might have different tastes. -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
30.06.2023 22:16, Giuliano Colla via lazarus пишет: I promise, this is the last mail from me in this thread. :) If the brilliant minds which have elaborated a new numbering scheme had spent their time in something more productive, such as making life a little bit easier to developers, I believe that the Lazarus community would have appreciated much more! The same holds true for writing rants in mailing lists. ;) For instance, there is the bad habit to "deprecate" without considering what happens to developers which must maintain their programs. I found it rather frustrating to replace all occurrences of clDark with clDkGray, just because clDark had been deprecated, instead of simply replacing the definition wit a line in types clDark = clDkGray. Sigh, what can I say, just some numbers. 1. clDark = TColor(-5), clDkGray = TColor($808080). These numbers are not equal. 2. clDark is deprecated on 23.11.2008 with a bunch of other CLX colors. All these colors are NOT present in Delphi. Your code emitted warnings at least for 10 years! 3. ClDark et al. were IFDEFed out (define DefineCLXColors), not removed (sic!) on 30.09.2018. I've been taught that the golden rule to make code reusable is to hide the implementation and expose only the feature. Who cares how a color is implemented, provided that it shows the same? The same holds true for a lot of deprecations, which could be easily hidden without any adverse effect. -- Best regards, Maxim Ganetsky mailto:gan...@narod.ru -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
Il 30/06/23 19:40, Mattias Gaertner via lazarus ha scritto: Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus wrote: [...] Honestly: I'll settle for actually managing to get a release out. +1000 +1000 me too. If the brilliant minds which have elaborated a new numbering scheme had spent their time in something more productive, such as making life a little bit easier to developers, I believe that the Lazarus community would have appreciated much more! For instance, there is the bad habit to "deprecate" without considering what happens to developers which must maintain their programs. I found it rather frustrating to replace all occurrences of clDark with clDkGray, just because clDark had been deprecated, instead of simply replacing the definition wit a line in types clDark = clDkGray. I've been taught that the golden rule to make code reusable is to hide the implementation and expose only the feature. Who cares how a color is implemented, provided that it shows the same? The same holds true for a lot of deprecations, which could be easily hidden without any adverse effect. Giuliano -- Do not do to others as you would have them do to you.They might have different tastes. -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 16:25:47 +0200 (CEST) Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus wrote: >[...] > Honestly: I'll settle for actually managing to get a release out. +1000 Mattias -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
30.06.2023 17:25, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus пишет: On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus wrote: 30.06.2023 16:55, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus пишет: On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus wrote: Basically, version numbering is all about "marketing". By always increasing major version we tell to the general audience that major release indeed contains major changes (which is always the case). So we solve/improve "marketing" issues. BTW, in my opinion FPC has similar issues and will benefit from such approach to versioning too. That was funny to read :-) I think the biggest issue in this regard is actually making releases to begin with. Yes indeed, but then in case of rare releases it is even more important to have right version numbering. :) Changing versioning is an easy and logical move in any case, why not do it? That was even more funny to read... Honestly: I'll settle for actually managing to get a release out. Yes indeed, this is most important. But I fail to see how these moves contradict each other. In any case, this is relevant only for the next major release (so next major version of FPC will be e.g. 4.0, not 3.4.0 ). And yes, this is minor issue/move, but still is IMO important (it is always wise to show to the general audience that the project is alive and kicking, which is indeed the case for FPC compiler too). But again, by any means, I do not insist on this. It is just a suggestion to consider. -- Best regards, Maxim Ganetsky mailto:gan...@narod.ru -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus wrote: 30.06.2023 16:55, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus пишет: On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus wrote: Basically, version numbering is all about "marketing". By always increasing major version we tell to the general audience that major release indeed contains major changes (which is always the case). So we solve/improve "marketing" issues. BTW, in my opinion FPC has similar issues and will benefit from such approach to versioning too. That was funny to read :-) I think the biggest issue in this regard is actually making releases to begin with. Yes indeed, but then in case of rare releases it is even more important to have right version numbering. :) Changing versioning is an easy and logical move in any case, why not do it? That was even more funny to read... Honestly: I'll settle for actually managing to get a release out. Michael.-- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
30.06.2023 16:55, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus пишет: On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus wrote: Basically, version numbering is all about "marketing". By always increasing major version we tell to the general audience that major release indeed contains major changes (which is always the case). So we solve/improve "marketing" issues. BTW, in my opinion FPC has similar issues and will benefit from such approach to versioning too. That was funny to read :-) I think the biggest issue in this regard is actually making releases to begin with. Yes indeed, but then in case of rare releases it is even more important to have right version numbering. :) Changing versioning is an easy and logical move in any case, why not do it? -- Best regards, Maxim Ganetsky mailto:gan...@narod.ru -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus wrote: Basically, version numbering is all about "marketing". By always increasing major version we tell to the general audience that major release indeed contains major changes (which is always the case). So we solve/improve "marketing" issues. BTW, in my opinion FPC has similar issues and will benefit from such approach to versioning too. That was funny to read :-) I think the biggest issue in this regard is actually making releases to begin with. Michael. -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus wrote: 30.06.2023 14:27, Martin Frb via lazarus пишет: On 30/06/2023 12:51, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus wrote: On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Juha Manninen via lazarus wrote: On Friday, June 30, 2023, John Landmesser via lazarus < lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote: perhaps that should have become 3.00 ? Lazarus *3.99* (rev main_3_99-41-g3d8dd85474) FPC 3.2.2 x86_64-linux-gtk2 You are looking at trunk, the development version. See : https://wiki.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering#Lazarus_3.0_and_newer You might want to add some explanation for this new versioning scheme to that page. Added. I made some improvements, hope it is even more clear now. The graph does not help. From what is currently there, I don't understand neither the logic nor the need of this change. "Need"... Well, in terms of "because it solved the issue xyz" => then there is no need. Basically, version numbering is all about "marketing". By always increasing major version we tell to the general audience that major release indeed contains major changes (which is always the case). So we solve/improve "marketing" issues. Thanks to all for the explanations, all is clear now ! Michael.-- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
30.06.2023 16:44, Maxim Ganetsky via lazarus пишет: 30.06.2023 14:27, Martin Frb via lazarus пишет: On 30/06/2023 12:51, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus wrote: On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Juha Manninen via lazarus wrote: On Friday, June 30, 2023, John Landmesser via lazarus < lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote: perhaps that should have become 3.00 ? Lazarus *3.99* (rev main_3_99-41-g3d8dd85474) FPC 3.2.2 x86_64-linux-gtk2 You are looking at trunk, the development version. See : https://wiki.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering#Lazarus_3.0_and_newer You might want to add some explanation for this new versioning scheme to that page. Added. I made some improvements, hope it is even more clear now. The graph does not help. From what is currently there, I don't understand neither the logic nor the need of this change. "Need"... Well, in terms of "because it solved the issue xyz" => then there is no need. Basically, version numbering is all about "marketing". By always increasing major version we tell to the general audience that major release indeed contains major changes (which is always the case). So we solve/improve "marketing" issues. BTW, in my opinion FPC has similar issues and will benefit from such approach to versioning too. -- Best regards, Maxim Ganetsky mailto:gan...@narod.ru -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
30.06.2023 14:27, Martin Frb via lazarus пишет: On 30/06/2023 12:51, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus wrote: On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Juha Manninen via lazarus wrote: On Friday, June 30, 2023, John Landmesser via lazarus < lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote: perhaps that should have become 3.00 ? Lazarus *3.99* (rev main_3_99-41-g3d8dd85474) FPC 3.2.2 x86_64-linux-gtk2 You are looking at trunk, the development version. See : https://wiki.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering#Lazarus_3.0_and_newer You might want to add some explanation for this new versioning scheme to that page. Added. I made some improvements, hope it is even more clear now. The graph does not help. From what is currently there, I don't understand neither the logic nor the need of this change. "Need"... Well, in terms of "because it solved the issue xyz" => then there is no need. Basically, version numbering is all about "marketing". By always increasing major version we tell to the general audience that major release indeed contains major changes (which is always the case). So we solve/improve "marketing" issues. -- Best regards, Maxim Ganetsky mailto:gan...@narod.ru -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
On 30/06/2023 14:04, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus wrote: So basically you did a shift left of the version number ? Not exactly, that would mean that major releases would be 4.0 and 6.0. Leaving 3 and 5 for development versions. - We combined the first 2 digits into one. (because there separation had no meaning) - Except for "trunk" development, which now got the .99 minor. - for fixes releases and fixes development, the "patch" moved left to the "minor" Or, yes: A shift left, the unallocated the odd trunk-developments, and reassigned them a .99. -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Martin Frb via lazarus wrote: On 30/06/2023 13:27, Martin Frb via lazarus wrote: But, there was no need (anymore) to reserve 2 digits for major releases. When 1.0 was released there was no need for further major releases to be 1.2 instead of 2.0. I forgot to add the explanation for "anymore" Prior to 1.0 the minor and patch numbers were used: 0.minor.patch But therefore the "major" number was not used (always 0). Since Lazarus became stable, the major number became 1 and it became available for use. Yet - without perceivable need - minor and patch were kept in used too. Making it 3 digits to be used. When only 2 were needed. So basically you did a shift left of the version number ? Michael. -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
On 30/06/2023 13:27, Martin Frb via lazarus wrote: But, there was no need (anymore) to reserve 2 digits for major releases. When 1.0 was released there was no need for further major releases to be 1.2 instead of 2.0. I forgot to add the explanation for "anymore" Prior to 1.0 the minor and patch numbers were used: 0.minor.patch But therefore the "major" number was not used (always 0). Since Lazarus became stable, the major number became 1 and it became available for use. Yet - without perceivable need - minor and patch were kept in used too. Making it 3 digits to be used. When only 2 were needed. -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
On 30/06/2023 12:51, Michael Van Canneyt via lazarus wrote: On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Juha Manninen via lazarus wrote: On Friday, June 30, 2023, John Landmesser via lazarus < lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote: perhaps that should have become 3.00 ? Lazarus *3.99* (rev main_3_99-41-g3d8dd85474) FPC 3.2.2 x86_64-linux-gtk2 You are looking at trunk, the development version. See : https://wiki.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering#Lazarus_3.0_and_newer You might want to add some explanation for this new versioning scheme to that page. Added. The graph does not help. From what is currently there, I don't understand neither the logic nor the need of this change. "Need"... Well, in terms of "because it solved the issue xyz" => then there is no need. But, there was no need (anymore) to reserve 2 digits for major releases. When 1.0 was released there was no need for further major releases to be 1.2 instead of 2.0. So simple said a non-needed feature was abandoned, subjectively simplifying the process. Also, how come trunk is 3.99 (indicating development for 4.0, if I understand the page correctly) if 3.0 is not yet out ? Based on the graph, I would think trunk should be at 2.99 now. The fixes_3 branch does exist. So the features for 3.0 have been finalized. Trunk therefore from this point prepares for 4.0. -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Juha Manninen via lazarus wrote: On Friday, June 30, 2023, John Landmesser via lazarus < lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote: perhaps that should have become 3.00 ? Lazarus *3.99* (rev main_3_99-41-g3d8dd85474) FPC 3.2.2 x86_64-linux-gtk2 You are looking at trunk, the development version. See : https://wiki.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering#Lazarus_3.0_and_newer You might want to add some explanation for this new versioning scheme to that page. The graph does not help. From what is currently there, I don't understand neither the logic nor the need of this change. Also, how come trunk is 3.99 (indicating development for 4.0, if I understand the page correctly) if 3.0 is not yet out ? Based on the graph, I would think trunk should be at 2.99 now. Michael. -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
On Friday, June 30, 2023, John Landmesser via lazarus < lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote: > perhaps that should have become 3.00 ? > > Lazarus *3.99* (rev main_3_99-41-g3d8dd85474) FPC 3.2.2 x86_64-linux-gtk2 > > You are looking at trunk, the development version. See : https://wiki.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering#Lazarus_3.0_and_newer Juha -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
[Lazarus] Lazarus trunk version number
perhaps that should have become 3.00 ? Lazarus *3.99* (rev main_3_99-41-g3d8dd85474) FPC 3.2.2 x86_64-linux-gtk2 Yes, Just a number! -- ___ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
