- Dec 7, 2018
- 353
- 587
You saidJust because you don't see it as an issue doesn't make me wrong.
Even if we pretend that x.x.x versioning is the only true standard and every software product must stick to it, your definition of major version is wrong, at least according to Microsoft. On their guidance at1.0 describes a completed game ready to ship to market.
You must be registered to see the links
, they link to
You must be registered to see the links
, which has this to sayThis versioning scheme is useful for products that are in regularly improved and updated, such that people who use them may not be able to update at the same rate that the product does - for example if it's a library other code relies on and updating to a breaking version requires changing code, or if the software is getting major changes that some buyers can't immediately change their process over to and want to keep an old version with LTS security updates. So your contention that version 1.0 is a "completed game" is, at the very least, not the official standard and really is shoehorning a standard meant for something else onto games. It's a reasonable suggestion if people like version 1.0.0 being the completed game, and there's nothing wrong with developers doing their versions this way, but you saying that
- MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes
- MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner
- PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes
Is offensively wrong, not just because it's not actually true, but because you're being a dick to a new developer who just wants to make some porn for us.This is very simple stuff all developers should know.