15th Feb 2024: Astro Pixel Processor 2.0.0-beta29 released - macOS native File Chooser, macOS CMD-Q fixed, read-only Fits on network fixed and other bug fixes
7th December 2023: added payment option Alipay to purchase Astro Pixel Processor from China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and other countries where Alipay is used.
I'm not a software developer and absolutely no expert here.. How is a commercial software version numbering dertermined?
I generally thought:
1. Major changes move versions from 1.x to 2.x etc.
2. Minor additions move things from x.1 to x.2
3. Enhancements to existing routines move things from x.x1 to x.x2
I guess I'm trying to cut Mabula some slack here. At first glance one could think "all this for 1.082 to 1.083??". I have to admit looking at another software package and seeing it had "only" moved from 1.7x to 1.9x in 3 years and thinking "well, that hasn't seen much development". Looking at another and seeing it move from 2.x to 3.x in the same time made me think "this is more actively developed".
It seems to me (absolutely no complaint as "its just a name" and again I'm no expert), but this last round is more of a 1.8 to 1.9. Is there something more formal at play here or is it just marketing?
Hi William @maxtrixbass,
Yes, you make a very valid point here 😉
This release could well have been going from 1.083 to 1.1 considering what changed, improved and was added and the long release time.
Rules about version numbering have to do with setting goals I think and there are no set rules really. It depends on the project and the possibilities probably.
I wil discuss this with Vincent and Wouter going forward to make the version number reflect more what happens with Astro Pixel Processor. We will definitely make a clear list of the upcoming future releases and what they will contain and I will publish it on our website.
As far as marketing concerned, version numbering will be used for marketing for sure, so maybe I need to be a bit more aggresive with this?
Thank you very much for your thoughts!
Mabula
Marketing is, like software, not my strong suit, but there is certainly an aspect of "perceived value" here. To me, I look at 1.x versions of any software package as "less mature" than 2.x+. I don't like bleading edge. I just want something that works. I have a feeling there are more of us than the tinkerers who want the latest albiet unproven release or that new gadget that just hit the market. I don't think it unreasonable to call this version 1.9...and I don't mean 1.09. Even looking at those two numbers makes me feel different about APP. Kind of pathetic, but that's why economics is in the social sciences department along with psychology.
I would perceive a small change between "1.082 and 1.083" as a maintenance update really which I think undervalues the work involved, especially with an alpha and 3 betas in the middle. At this rate it could take decades before you hit 1.2.
There are those I'm sure who call a bug fix a major update/rewrite, but you seem to be selling yourself short IMHO.
I was assuming the version number was just iterative. The 83rd releasable build of the software. Each number representing an internal milestone of arbitrary length.
That said, I do think a small adjustment conceptually would work. Basically to just drop the 1. and use the build milestone. So this release would be release 83. At work this is how we have evolved to handle build milestones for our customers.
Another approach is the Windows 10 model. Pick a version number and stick to it and give each release a feature version until you move up. Like APP 10 Build 20, 21, 22, etc. then APP 11 Build 20, 21, etc.
