Because:

• It isn't just a development detail its going in the installer filenames, and the site and the news item and the little text every player sees and the lobby update warning etc etc etc
• Because version numbering isn't a psychologically neutral concept. While the versioning system they've started to use is nice, the version number they're starting from, is not, and bundles in ramifications that appear to have been disregarded and ignored with no explanation because it was easier to multiply by 100 than to think about it.
• The engine devs have demonstrated a spectacular failure to justify their new versioning system. RTFM is their answer, and the threads pointed at don't actually justify the version number, only the versioning system.
• Even if they do justify the 83 number in the logs, the parts in question are buried under a gigantic fillibuster, making the answer useless. It's like saying "the answer is somewhere in the universe go find it", it's probably true but it's not an answer.
• Engine devs appear happy to waste our time and their own. The question could have been answered and justified ten times over given the character count of RTFM replies and responses, and the time spent trawling through the meeting minutes, not finding the answer, and going over again.

From what I have read, it was Hoijui that suggested 83 1 and 11, and cited he preferred 83 himself. Nobody agreed or disagreed. No justification was ever put forward, and 83 appeared in the next RC diagram, having never been discussed or greed upon.

ITT: Drama.

How about this...

We have been using 0.xx amirite?

So, lets just start at 1.x for new version.

OMG! Amigenius?

AF's summary of the meeting is about as wrong as it gets.
the only thing he got right, is the basic three numbers that were suggested: 1, 11, 83

no time to summarize.

Yet you've wasted more time telling me I'm wrong than actually explaining. You have already typed more text saying it would take too long to explain than it would take to actually do it.

I have no qualm with the version scheme, it makes sense. Its the number, and your inability and refusal to justify it.

A fillibuster is not an answer or a justification. We know why it's 83.0 and not 83.0.1 and we know how that number would progress forward for each kind of release. What is not understood is why 83 when 1 or 11 would have been far more sensible.

Just to clarify as I suspect Hoijui isn't actually reading my posts properly and thinks Im asking why the version scheme was chosen, which isn't the point of this thread:





Q: Why was 83 chosen and not 1 or 11?

I read the minutes and can answer this:
- 1 was rejected cause it implies a "final release" when its actually just a change to the numbering scheme.
- 11 was rejected cause using the year doesn't work if 2 releases are made in the same year.
no issues were seen with 83 so that was chosen.


On the other hand I can't find any actual reasons for you preferring the other 2. Just some vagueries. It was no harder reading the meeting minutes to find conclusive answers than reading all your drama.

Which brings me back to my original question:

If someone counts up all the major versions released and figures out a new version number assuming we used the new schema from the beginning, would you use that number instead of 83?

e.g Hoijui appeared out of nowhere in 2004 with the completed version scheme, and the SYs started at 1.0 and stuck to it until today

Just for reference, if we had stuck to this version scheme from the start, the next release of spring would not be v83, it would be v26.0

Why not do like Firefox, every little bugfix increments the major version number by 1. Besides, it's better luawise, because lua can't produce a number like 0.83 without it being of the type 0.82999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 etc.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.