|
Title: Beta? Post by: satoshi on June 26, 2010, 05:02:43 PM Is it about time we lose the Beta? I would make this release version 1.3.
Title: Re: Beta? Post by: virtualcoin on June 26, 2010, 11:04:01 PM I'm not sure, but I think it's unusual to jump from version 0.3 to 1.3. ^^ Maybe 1.0?
But on the other hand: who cares? Title: Re: Beta? Post by: NewLibertyStandard on June 27, 2010, 01:10:42 AM My vote is for 1.0. It'll probably help us get slashdotted.
Title: Re: Beta? Post by: lachesis on June 27, 2010, 01:33:31 AM +1 NLS. Version 1.0 sounds better than 1.3.
Title: Re: Beta? Post by: satoshi on June 27, 2010, 12:43:50 PM But 1.0 sounds like the first release. For some things newness is a virtue but for this type of software, maturity and stability are important. I don't want to put my money in something that's 1.0. 1.0 might be more interesting for a moment, but after that we're still 1.0 and everyone who comes along thinks we just started. This is the third major release and 1.3 reflects that development history. (0.1, 0.2, 1.3)
Title: Re: Beta? Post by: lachesis on June 27, 2010, 01:47:18 PM True, and it is your project. 1.3 it is!
Title: Re: Beta? Post by: NewLibertyStandard on June 28, 2010, 08:36:42 AM Quote from: Wikipedia Proprietary software developers often start at version 1 for the first release of a program and increment the major version number with each rewrite. This can mean that a program can reach version 3 within a few months of development, before it is considered stable or reliable. Quote Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Version_1.0_as_a_milestone)In contrast to this, the free-software community tends to use version 1.0 as a major milestone, indicating that the software is "complete", that it has all major features, and is considered reliable enough for general release. The above description is how I and most geeks view version 1.0 software. Slashdot readers and editors will understand that 1.0 means that we're ready for business. Getting on Slashdot is the best advertising opportunity we'll probably get for a very long time, so to willfully pass it up seems unwise to me. Title: Re: Beta? Post by: D҉ataWraith on June 28, 2010, 12:17:51 PM I agree with lachesis and NLS. Version 1.0 is better for publicity, and is commonly taken to mean "we're out of beta now, but don't expect everything to be perfect."
Title: Re: Beta? Post by: teppy on June 28, 2010, 06:38:46 PM I agree as well - "version 1.0" is ready-made for Slashdot.
Title: Re: Beta? Post by: Bitcoiner on June 28, 2010, 07:20:13 PM 1.0 is a nice version number to get started off with, and indicates that the software is ready for prime time. A jump from 0.2 to 1.3 would be a little strange.
Title: Re: Beta? Post by: The Madhatter on June 28, 2010, 09:07:15 PM I also agree with v1.0 for the same reasons posted above. Publicity would also be nice. ;)
Title: Re: Beta? Post by: dkaparis on June 29, 2010, 12:36:58 AM FWIW I'd vote for 1.0 too.
As NLS and D҉ataWraith have pointed, there are certain perceptions associated with a 1.0 release and they are mostly reasonable. Trying to cheat these perceptions in such way is unwise in my opinion. Much better to release 1.0 now and do another minor release or two shortly afterwards. Title: Re: Beta? Post by: Bitcoiner on June 30, 2010, 12:04:49 AM FWIW I'd vote for 1.0 too. As NLS and D҉ataWraith have pointed, there are certain perceptions associated with a 1.0 release and they are mostly reasonable. Trying to cheat these perceptions in such way is unwise in my opinion. Much better to release 1.0 now and do another minor release or two shortly afterwards. And if not 1.0, there's nothing wrong with 0.3. Tor is only at 0.2 and is a popular anonymity network. It's all about networking and how you present the application. Tor has user-friendly client software and a user-friendly website. Is Bitcoin really even 1.0 software? I would argue that it is still missing a lot of polish and features. 0.3 is fine; just improve the marketing, the user-friendliness and look & feel of the website, and usage will keep increasing. Title: Re: Beta? Post by: Xunie on June 30, 2010, 01:37:07 AM I vote for "1.0" and not "1.3" or something, bleh!
(I also advice we use a major, minor and patch level version number, "0.0.00".) I've used bitcoin-1.3.0.rc3-linux[1] and found it to be mature enough to be called "1.0" in my opinion. (It was already called 1.3 there, but I guess we cal all agree it's the next release, thus right now can be called both 1.3 and 0.3.) [1] http://www.bitcoin.org/download/bitcoin-1.3.0.rc3-linux.tar.gz Title: Re: Beta? Post by: NewLibertyStandard on June 30, 2010, 02:16:29 AM I think version 0.3 would be a better choice if Bitcoin wasn't making financial transactions on Windows. A significant number of people, particularly Windows users, don't trust software below version 1.1 or 1.2, but going from version 0.2 to 1.3 will backfire when those users find out we skipped the first three 1.x versions.
Title: Re: Beta? Post by: laszlo on June 30, 2010, 02:45:27 AM I'm not much of a marketing guy or anything but it makes sense to me to refer to software like this by the version in source control, like Bitcoin r82 or whatever.. maybe that's too geeky for some people.
Title: Re: Beta? Post by: satoshi on July 02, 2010, 10:03:41 PM OK, back to 0.3 then.
Please download RC4 and check it over as soon as possible. I'd like to release it soon. http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199.msg1927#msg1927 Other than the version number change, which included changes in readme.txt and setup.nsi, I reduced the maximum number of outbound connections from 15 to 8 so nodes that accept inbound don't get too many connections. 15 was a lot more than needed. 8 is still plenty for redundancy. |