I'm not really sure Blizzard understands major vs minor...
(and before anyone criticizes me using major/minor here.. they've already announced plans for release 1.1, meaning their majors are intended to be 1.x and minors as 1.xx)
With that in mind, they've started releasing Dev Blogs on all the things being changed in the upcoming 1.04 release.. which contains about 100x more changes than 1.03 or previous. So either:
a} 1.04 should have been named as 1.1, and the later 1.1 would be 1.2 (or, since the next big release is supposed to be adding major functionality, primarily pvp, it could even be 2.0)
b} 1.04 should have been split into several proper minor patches over these last and next few weeks, rather than lumping it all into one, and making everyone wait 2 months for all of it.
I'd vote {b}, likely would have helped keep players interested in these boring times. But more importantly, major/minor is a fun silly thing to argue over
They couldn't call it 1.1 as they have already promised PvP with the 1.1 patch. So while you are right, and it's way to big to be a 1.XX patch, that's the route they're going.
In the end, I don't care what they call it, I just hope they don't have to push it back any further
it cant be 2.0 as per normal blizzard naming conventions that would be an expansion. While they are changing alot of things I don't think it warrants a 1.1 (but time will tell). It is also possible that they just dont want backlash saying 1.1 will now be 1.2 even if it doesn't delay it one bit as the perception will be there.
Aha, I didn't know they saved X.0 releases for expansions... still, the theoretical size of the pvp release is essentially a free small expansion, which would warrant the 2.0 versioning.
Aha, I didn't know they saved X.0 releases for expansions... still, the theoretical size of the pvp release is essentially a free small expansion, which would warrant the 2.0 versioning.
No
A.B.C.D
A = Full Version - Typical of Releases aka expansions or in other software cycles - a major overhaul
B = Sub Version - This is major upgrades to an existing version
C = Build Number
D = MINOR Update
At my company we version things as follows
A = Each increment is a complete ovehaul... barely recognizable
B = Specification Update
C = Build update - Typical bug fixes
D = EXTREMELY minor... maybe an xml update
Aha, I didn't know they saved X.0 releases for expansions... still, the theoretical size of the pvp release is essentially a free small expansion, which would warrant the 2.0 versioning.
No
A.B.C.D
A = Full Version - Typical of Releases aka expansions or in other software cycles - a major overhaul
B = Sub Version - This is major upgrades to an existing version
C = Build Number
D = MINOR Update
At my company we version things as follows
A = Each increment is a complete ovehaul... barely recognizable
B = Specification Update
C = Build update - Typical bug fixes
D = EXTREMELY minor... maybe an xml update
This is already a Microsoft standard, in case you didn't know.
A.B.C.D
A = Full Version - Typical of Releases aka expansions or in other software cycles - a major overhaul
B = Sub Version - This is major upgrades to an existing version
C = Build Number
D = MINOR Update
At my company we version things as follows
A = Each increment is a complete ovehaul... barely recognizable
B = Specification Update
C = Build update - Typical bug fixes
D = EXTREMELY minor... maybe an xml update
I agree, which is what the original post was about (for fun of sparking versioning conversation). And the 1.0.4 patch is definitely not a bug fix category, it's a pretty big update and overhaul of multiple systems. Whether or not 1.1.0 is big enough to be classified as a free expansion (and 2.0.0) is yet to be seen, hence why I used the adjective "theoretical".
A.B.C.D
A = Full Version - Typical of Releases aka expansions or in other software cycles - a major overhaul
B = Sub Version - This is major upgrades to an existing version
C = Build Number
D = MINOR Update
At my company we version things as follows
A = Each increment is a complete ovehaul... barely recognizable
B = Specification Update
C = Build update - Typical bug fixes
D = EXTREMELY minor... maybe an xml update
I agree, which is what the original post was about (for fun of sparking versioning conversation). And the 1.0.4 patch is definitely not a bug fix category, it's a pretty big update and overhaul of multiple systems. Whether or not 1.1.0 is big enough to be classified as a free expansion (and 2.0.0) is yet to be seen, hence why I used the adjective "theoretical".
yeah... you could call this a specification update but we are talking project level and not tool level like most of my company works at.
I'd probably still call this a build update rather than a sub version.. but we are just arguing semantics now lol
(and before anyone criticizes me using major/minor here.. they've already announced plans for release 1.1, meaning their majors are intended to be 1.x and minors as 1.xx)
With that in mind, they've started releasing Dev Blogs on all the things being changed in the upcoming 1.04 release.. which contains about 100x more changes than 1.03 or previous. So either:
a} 1.04 should have been named as 1.1, and the later 1.1 would be 1.2 (or, since the next big release is supposed to be adding major functionality, primarily pvp, it could even be 2.0)
b} 1.04 should have been split into several proper minor patches over these last and next few weeks, rather than lumping it all into one, and making everyone wait 2 months for all of it.
I'd vote {b}, likely would have helped keep players interested in these boring times. But more importantly, major/minor is a fun silly thing to argue over
In the end, I don't care what they call it, I just hope they don't have to push it back any further
No
A.B.C.D
A = Full Version - Typical of Releases aka expansions or in other software cycles - a major overhaul
B = Sub Version - This is major upgrades to an existing version
C = Build Number
D = MINOR Update
At my company we version things as follows
A = Each increment is a complete ovehaul... barely recognizable
B = Specification Update
C = Build update - Typical bug fixes
D = EXTREMELY minor... maybe an xml update
It has the potential to hugely change the game into a more enjoyable experience, and that's all I care.
This^
I agree, which is what the original post was about (for fun of sparking versioning conversation). And the 1.0.4 patch is definitely not a bug fix category, it's a pretty big update and overhaul of multiple systems. Whether or not 1.1.0 is big enough to be classified as a free expansion (and 2.0.0) is yet to be seen, hence why I used the adjective "theoretical".
yeah... you could call this a specification update but we are talking project level and not tool level like most of my company works at.
I'd probably still call this a build update rather than a sub version.. but we are just arguing semantics now lol
+1