I also vote for a 3.0 or 3 naming. Just for being clear what to learn/buy?
I mean as a newbie looking at the version I have a book/manual for 2.48 I don't see why I can't understand 2.5 or 2.6? They can't be that much different right it's not a bid change in version? On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 12:35 +1000, Luke Frisken wrote: > If you can't call this version 3.0, when will there ever be a > significant enough change to deserve such a name change? What huge > changes deemed it necessary to in from 1.x to 2.0? If it was just > because of a lack of numbers then so be it, but now there is a chance > to amend that and actually emphasise the large change that has occured > by giving it I more noticeable version number. something that sets it > apart from the rest of the 2.x series, because as far as I can see, > the change undergone within the 2.x series so far has not been > anywhere near as radical as what has happened in the current 2.5. > > That's just my view, but I don't mind what actually happens either > way. I just feel that it will have a better impact on outsiders if we > call it 3.0, then all those people sad enough to not realize the > potential of blender because they were fed up with some aspect of it > (like many of my friends for instance), will sit up and take notice. > > Luke > > On 4/9/10, Mike Pan <mike.c....@gmail.com> wrote: > > As far as I know, the first stable release will be called Blender 2.60, not > > 2.50. > > > > 2.60 would be a fine name as it denotes the rather large jump in feature and > > UI from Blender 2.49. Blender 2.50 would not be a very intuitive name to > > many users(especially non-power users), who would consider 2.49 to be almost > > equivalent to 2.50, which is far from true. > > > > We won't be able to wipe the internet clean of Blender 2.4 tutorials and > > resources in the next 4 month, and in order to hint at the users that the > > next release will be significantly different from the older 2.4x series can > > only be done through a new branding effort. So, I am all for calling it > > Blender 3, or at least Blender 2.60. > > > > Power-users don't seems to care about the versioning, for all we care, we > > can name Blender with the SVN revision numbers. But IMO proper versioning > > is as important as the recode, to signify the milestone that we've reached > > with this huge refactor. > > > > -mike > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Paolo Ciccone <phcicc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello. > >> > >> There seems to be a bit of misconception about what was asked. This thread > >> has turned from the initial request, to a debate about what would be the > >> right version number for Blender. > >> I apologize if I "fueled the fire" of that, the original question remains, > >> though. > >> Educators, like myself, and authors of books and DVDs that will help > >> understand Blender are in need of knowing what the program will be called. > >> It's not a matter of preferences, > >> it's a matter of having a clear way to refer to the program and being able > >> to prepare material that refers to Blender in the *proper* way. This is of > >> benefit for everybody. It seems that > >> some developer find the issue unimportant or irrelevant. Be assured that > >> it's not. > >> If you worked on just one release of a product, not a program, a product, > >> in > >> the software industry you should know how much time and care is spent in > >> taking that decision. > >> > >> If you spend hours and hours in coding for Blender you should care if > >> people > >> will benefit from the fruit of so much effort. It's the role of people > >> like > >> me to spread the word and help users > >> adopt Blender. At the end it's for the benefit of everybody. > >> I dedicate two full days a week to promoting Blender. This includes > >> finding > >> a good topic for a tutorial, recording it, editing it, publishing it at > >> Creative COW, blogging about it, > >> respond to the forum requests, etc. > >> Some of the feedback that I received included "I had Blender for a year, > >> could not figure it out, now I can, thanks to your tutorials" or "I > >> thought > >> I could never use 3D, now you made > >> it accessible for me". I'm not bragging about it, I mention it because the > >> final point of making a program is to have people using it. Otherwise all > >> that coding is pointless. Preaching to > >> the choir can be very rewarding but it doesn't go that far. > >> > >> There is a difference between an Array, a List or a Dictionary. You, as a > >> developer, would not like ambiguity in that. Educators and users of your > >> program don't like a similar ambiguity > >> in how to refer to the darn program. > >> Want to call it 2.6? Fine, but let's decide here and now how the program > >> will be known to the public at large. Development versions don't count in > >> that scheme. I have been telling people to stay clear from > >> development versions because they are not production quality. But there is > >> a > >> point when the program ends the Beta phase and is released. That is what > >> the public at large will need to use. > >> > >> What should we call it? > >> > >> It's not a hard decision or one that conflicts with the development. We > >> are > >> at a point where this is becoming an issue. Every day. Let's make a > >> decision, update the websites and stick to the plan. > >> It will give a sense of stability, a sense of what to expect and it will > >> provide a clear way to refer to the program. > >> > >> What you do, as a developer, is crucial and important. What we do, as > >> educators, is important too. When you dismiss this issue as "not > >> important" > >> you are belittling our effort and undermining endless > >> hours of planning and design on how to make the future version of Blender > >> a > >> success. > >> > >> We are not asking for new features, we are just in need to have one > >> simple > >> "label" decided, possibly in a week or so. > >> > >> Thanks for your time. > >> > >> Cheers. > >> --- > >> Paolo Ciccone > >> www.preta3d.com > >> www.paolociccone.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Bf-committers mailing list > >> Bf-committers@blender.org > >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > Bf-committers@blender.org > > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers