3(?).0.0
Forum rules
Please do not post any "phpBB" specific topics here unless they do not fit into the category above.
Do not post bug reports, feature or support requests! No really... Do not post bug reports, feature or support requests! Doing so will make Bertie a very sad bear indeed. :(
Please do not post any "phpBB" specific topics here unless they do not fit into the category above.
Do not post bug reports, feature or support requests! No really... Do not post bug reports, feature or support requests! Doing so will make Bertie a very sad bear indeed. :(
-
TC
- Registered User
- Posts: 340
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 7:23 pm
- Location: Black Sector from Teh
- Contact:
Re: 3(?).0.0
ever? i'm sure at some point in the forseeable future, yes. why do you ask? 2.2 is a major update to the software, not just some "point upgrade".Anonymous wrote:Ok, phpbb 2.2 is under development. But will *gulp* phpbb 3.0 ever be created?
-
Bertg
- Registered User
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:02 pm
- Location: Brugge, Belgium
- Contact:
Re: 3(?).0.0
i think 3.0.0 wil be php5, flash generated and hologrfic screens wil be needed...
Portfolio | Proud to be phpBB user
Re: 3(?).0.0
You see, phpBB hasn't yet been infected with what we may as well call "AOL Version-Inflation Syndrome." There was a time, a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, when AOL used an almost normal version numbering scheme. That's right. They actually released a *gasp* non-integral version! Several of them, in fact, including, but not limited to, 1.3, 1.6, and 2.5. Then came AOL 3.0. At this point, companies completely stopped using version numbers to actually represent anything having to do with actual development of a product, but merely as a marketing ploy--the general idea being that consumers would naturally gravitate toward software boasting a higher version number. Whether or not these tactics were successful, I choose not to speculate or research. As such, anytime they made a few changes to their software, they'd add another major version.
Now, actual versioning isn't exactly an easy thing to do either. The system employed by phpBB consists of three integers connected (albeit confusedly) by decimal points. Now, some European users may interpret this as making more sense, due to their use of the decimal comma. However, the delimiter isn't nearly as important as the content the numbers represent. In this case, I may as well call them major version, minor version, and revision. Whether or not others would term them that is irrelevant for my brief (and slowly turning not-so-brief) discussion.
In at least the phpBB scheme, the revision number is used to mark incremental releases. In stable branches, it indicates a new bug fix release, that may fix numerous bugs and potential security issues. In unstable branches, it refers more to a system of milestones.
This brings us to minor revision. It follows a simple even/odd pattern of stable/unstable, meaning x.y.z is stable if y is even, and unstable if it is odd. This is simple enough, but the most pertinent issue becomes just when to increment the major version. In the eyes of most users (especially users who have no software development experience), the version following 2.9.x should be 3.0.x. However, since the numbers are in fact not decimals, but a series of integers, the next version after 2.9.x could be 2.10.x. So when do you ever increment major version? An ideal circumstance is after a completely rewrite. However, many software projects are rewritten very few times. For instance, like phpBB 2.0.x, to provide a stable base from which to build future versions. Once you have this stable base, the need to ever rewrite may completely disappear. The end result being that mature software will have versions similar to 2.18.x, instead of 5.0. Future possible reasons for rewriting include a language switch, or a major architectural changes, but in some contexts, the changes from 2.0.x to 2.2.x could be seen as significant enough to warrant a major version change. I don't personally see it that way, however.
Version numbering is a very complex issue, especially with regard to development branches, and whether or not they earn status in the scheme. This is especially pertinent in the following situation: Pre-1.0 development often consists of numerous milestones. In turn, these milestones are often numbered 0.x, where x is the respective milestone. This is all great and well for a pre-1.0 version, but what happens when you wish to rewrite the code base from scratch, and come up with a new milestone list? What do you version that? 1.x is clearly not going to work, since that's reserved for the development of the 1.x line. However, this is stepping a bit far away from phpBB, and moving into general version numbering theory...
Wow, who would figure I could blab on for over 600 words about version numbering? @_@
Now, actual versioning isn't exactly an easy thing to do either. The system employed by phpBB consists of three integers connected (albeit confusedly) by decimal points. Now, some European users may interpret this as making more sense, due to their use of the decimal comma. However, the delimiter isn't nearly as important as the content the numbers represent. In this case, I may as well call them major version, minor version, and revision. Whether or not others would term them that is irrelevant for my brief (and slowly turning not-so-brief) discussion.
In at least the phpBB scheme, the revision number is used to mark incremental releases. In stable branches, it indicates a new bug fix release, that may fix numerous bugs and potential security issues. In unstable branches, it refers more to a system of milestones.
This brings us to minor revision. It follows a simple even/odd pattern of stable/unstable, meaning x.y.z is stable if y is even, and unstable if it is odd. This is simple enough, but the most pertinent issue becomes just when to increment the major version. In the eyes of most users (especially users who have no software development experience), the version following 2.9.x should be 3.0.x. However, since the numbers are in fact not decimals, but a series of integers, the next version after 2.9.x could be 2.10.x. So when do you ever increment major version? An ideal circumstance is after a completely rewrite. However, many software projects are rewritten very few times. For instance, like phpBB 2.0.x, to provide a stable base from which to build future versions. Once you have this stable base, the need to ever rewrite may completely disappear. The end result being that mature software will have versions similar to 2.18.x, instead of 5.0. Future possible reasons for rewriting include a language switch, or a major architectural changes, but in some contexts, the changes from 2.0.x to 2.2.x could be seen as significant enough to warrant a major version change. I don't personally see it that way, however.
Version numbering is a very complex issue, especially with regard to development branches, and whether or not they earn status in the scheme. This is especially pertinent in the following situation: Pre-1.0 development often consists of numerous milestones. In turn, these milestones are often numbered 0.x, where x is the respective milestone. This is all great and well for a pre-1.0 version, but what happens when you wish to rewrite the code base from scratch, and come up with a new milestone list? What do you version that? 1.x is clearly not going to work, since that's reserved for the development of the 1.x line. However, this is stepping a bit far away from phpBB, and moving into general version numbering theory...
Wow, who would figure I could blab on for over 600 words about version numbering? @_@
Re: 3(?).0.0
I like this insightful bit. I personally like the jEdit way of doing business: they have 4.1final as the stable branch, and 4.2preX for the unstable branch, milestone X. As far as patches, I know not.
Re: 3(?).0.0
phpBB will NEVER!! be flash as long as I am on the teamBertg wrote:i think 3.0.0 wil be php5, flash generated and hologrfic screens wil be needed...
-
TC
- Registered User
- Posts: 340
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 7:23 pm
- Location: Black Sector from Teh
- Contact:
Re: 3(?).0.0
it will of course be a full immersion holodeck program. trust me, i've seen the future.... 
it's the phpBB home security system™ that's most impressive....
it's the phpBB home security system™ that's most impressive....
2 8 : 0 6 : 4 2 : 1 2
-
Roberdin
- Registered User
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:44 pm
- Location: London, United Kingdom
Re: 3(?).0.0
lol, i can just imagine that...TC wrote:it will of course be a full immersion holodeck program. trust me, i've seen the future....
it's the phpBB home security system™ that's most impressive....
"This door has been locked. You may not enter or exit this room."
"Sorry, but only users granted special access may enter this room"
"You have been banned from this house. Please leave before you are killed"
Rob
-
A_Jelly_Doughnut
- Registered User
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:23 pm
