On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:25:59 -0500, Benjamin Kaplan wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Lie Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:48:46 +0000, Tim Rowe wrote: >> <snip> >> > >> > But that's what a major release number does for you. Modula2 was >> > quite a break from Modula. Think of Python3.0 it as a new language, >> > if you like, that's inspired by Python2. You can stay with Python2 or >> > you can adopt the new language. That way you won't have to think of >> > it in terms of breaking any sort of backwards compatibility because >> > there is no backwards ;-) >> > >> > -- >> > Tim Rowe >> >> Actually I noticed a tendency from open-source projects to have slow >> increment of version number, while proprietary projects usually have >> big version numbers. >> >> Linux 2.x: 1991 Python 3.x.x: 1991. Apache 2.0: 1995. OpenOffice.org >> 3.0: acquired by Sun at 1999. GIMP 2.x: 1995. Wine 1.x: 1993. >> >> > Wine actually timed the 1.0 release to be at about t the 15th "birthday" > of the project.
15 years is a very long time to get to version 1.0, many other (usually commercial or commercial-oriented front of a software) software release version 1.0 after 2-3 years of development, often shorter. wine has been used by a lot of people, not only a few internal developers and beta testers. > >> Compare with >> Windows: NT 3.1-NT 6.x: 1993. Visual Studio 97, 6.0, .NET, .NET 2003, >> .NET 2005, 2008: 1997. Photoshop (11 versions to CS4): 1987. Microsoft >> Office 3, 4, 95, 97, 2000, XP, 2003, 2007: 1990. Flash MX, 9, CS 1-4. >> iTunes 8: 2001. RealPlayer 4-11: 1995. Macintosh 1.0-9: 1984-2001, X.5: >> 2001. Winzip 12.0: early 1990s. >> >> > Just to note: Office 2007 is also known as Office 12, if you want to > look at version numbers. Also, Mac OS hasn't increased the major version > number past 10 since they switched from their own proprietary kernel to > using the open-source Darwin. > > > >> Interestingly, many linux _distro_ also inhibit this quick version >> number change. Fedora 10, Ubuntu is 2 years old, version 8 (they start >> from version 6 not 1). >> >> > That's because 8 isn't the verison number- it's the year the version was > released (8.10 is October 2008, not the 10th update to version 8). I know about that, but in my definition (and Wikipedia's), it is still the version number (maybe I forget to put a footnote). My point is that commercial software and commercial front of a free software (linux distros, Cedega 6.1) prefers having big version numbers. <snip> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
