They are going to deeply regret going with two digits year codes. ;)
So amazed at how Libreoffice just keeps on keeping on.
Such a great free open source suite to keep on every machine. Even if it is just a fallback to Google Docs/Sheets.
So amazed at how Libreoffice just keeps on keeping on.
Such a great free open source suite to keep on every machine. Even if it is just a fallback to Google Docs/Sheets.
Is it so costly to write the year in full?
Because writing Windows 11 2022 like any sane man would be far too unreasonable.
No, the H2 doesn't mean anything anymore. Once upon a time it stood for "Half", with H1 standing for "First Half" and H2 for "Second Half" of whatever year in two digits.
Of course, I still find this nonsense far more preferable to the bullshit that is the Chrome Version System where the entire number means jack shit.
Why should it mean anything? It's just a succeeding number for every iteration, I find that vastly better than using dates or point based releases.
Using a traditional Major.Minor.Revision.Build version number shows how much of the codebase is common between different versions. I can expect something made for one Major version to work in any other same Major version release, I can expect only a Revision or Build increment to include only very minor changes; likewise I can expect breaking changes between different Major versions. I don't know what Chrome 101 is other than it's after Chrome 100; I know NT6.0, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 are largely interchangable.
You could pull that maybe for a month. Longer than that and your customers will drag you through hot coals that you fix your stuff and move forward because you block security updates they need to install.
Unless of course you have it somewhere deep in company and it is IE8 app that no one can update.
But if you do anything public or SaaS platform you probably just fix stuff to support new versions or you are out of the game.
my understanding too is .04 memans lts and .10 means current like the nodejs release cycle
it's relieving to realize 04 and 10 are the months haha
Indeed confusing…
Also it feels like a lot of projects used to use 0.x numbers, even when they were widely used and stable!
That's such a cynical take. The 'manifesto' or the standard is important for two reasons:
1. The scheme wasn't obvious to inexperienced developers. You had to learn it from someone else. Semver standard made it possible for absolute beginners to search and follow the conventions correctly up front.
2. There are a lot of tools that use, support of enforce semver - especially language package managers like cargo, pip and npm. That ecosystem wouldn't exist without the unification provided by the standard.
I don’t object to the RFC at all. I don’t like it for several reasons, but it has a purpose and it is useful to other people. The points you mention are right. I would just add the caveat that I haven’t seen any real improvement in versioning schemes. Most projects, which were already close, follow it and a bunch of high-profile ones don’t at all, exactly like before.
What irks me a little is the idea that it’s normal for Ubuntu to do its thing because we did not have the concepts behind semver (“I remember being confused about how to version code until I encountered semver (Ubuntu scheme was the one I used for a short while). It's possible that Canonical was faced with a similar choice and decided to make one up”), but please let me know if I misunderstood.
Ubuntu’s scheme was clever and justified, but not because the alternative was mysterious. It was great to new versions being released at a specific point in time rather than when new features or breaking changes were ready. It was also quirky at the time, along with their animal codenames, and it helped them being seen as a new, modern distribution. But GCC, as an example of very high profile free software, has been more or less following semantic versioning principles since the 1980s. And as a teenager learning to code and immersed in the Open Source culture in the late 1990s, I can say that we knew perfectly well what was basically semver without the legalese.
If I'm running ServerTool 2.2.0, and 2.2.1 is available, I immediately know that is a bugfix release and should be minimal to roll out (shouldn't have any breaking changes, data schema changes, etc).
If ServerTool 2.4.0 comes out, that means I probably need to look at the changelog to see if there are any special upgrade instructions or gotchas, however, it is probably pretty safe, and shouldn't have huge changes for users. I wouldn't expect any extensions or integrations to break either.
But if ServerTool 3.0.0 comes out, I definitely am going to test out in in a test instance and validate the upgrade. Any extensions I have probably also need to be upgraded to support the new version, so I may have to wait to deploy it. It probably also has UI/UX changes that affect my users, so there may be training that needs to happen.
Again, it really depends on the tool on what versioning system they should use.
There should at the very least be an included little cli-app that you can query and list versions.
If it's important enough to you that you keep track of libre office version numbers you'll probably remember it's a year.
If not, it's still no worse than the old system, so what's the issue.
A couple of months ago my dad and I had to edit a large-ish book of 250+ pages (recipes) with a Table of contents and whatnot.
We ended up using Google docs because LO TOC and headers sync and editing Functionality was lacking.
I remember in MS Office 2000 there was a view showing only headers and easily allowing you to correct levels and indentations, as well as moving full sections.
Also we needed to automate a bit some image formatting and G docs scripting was just more straightforward.
And finally, the seamless online collaboration made it a no brainer, instead of document sharing and changes tracking.
It's a shame LO has achieved a lot and is amazing we can have such functionality for free. The team has done an amazing. I was just bummed something like GDocs seemed more complete for my book use case (particularly bc editing a 250+pages book in the browser is PAINFUL)
LibreOffice, OTOH, pretty much looks just like they did on the original.
The one issue I've run into is font substitution. The fonts that LibreOffice uses by default if the actual Microsoft fonts aren't installed are not, at least IMO, very good substitutes. They don't look great to me, but worse they seem to be very different in terms of character/word width, so everything gets reflowed to hell and back. But assuming you install the actual MS fonts, the results seem quite good.
or use 3 rather than 1 as the fourth.