Ikadon Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Hello there! First of all, this is not a major problem, just a question. So IP. Gallery 4 was announced a while ago. To be hones I was a bit shocked about the version-number at first. I thought that the steps would be minor, so like "IP. Gallery 3.3 -> 3.4 -> 3.5..." and IP. Suite 4 would be a major recode. It seems I was wrong. No problem there, but I must say that the different version numbers may be and are partly a bit confusing to me and (other) newcomers. Are there any plans to bring all application-versions more in line to each other? Regards, Ikadon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collin S. Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 IP.Gallery is more or less being totally rewritten, hence the new version number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Charles Posted November 2, 2010 Management Share Posted November 2, 2010 We have thought about that but on the flip side the new version of Gallery is a HUGE upgrade so we thought the 4.0 numbering made more sense. I know it gets confusing sometimes but it makes more sense in other ways. Hard decision :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikadon Posted November 2, 2010 Author Share Posted November 2, 2010 Ya, I guessed that, still it seems a bit strange to have a range from 1.0.0 (IP. Nexus) over 2.2, 3.1 to 4.0. It's just a bit complicate for new users to keep the track what's up to date. I have no real problem with it, just wanted to mention it though. edit: Thanks for the very fast reply! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Wers Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Still much more better than Google Chrome version rows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikadon Posted November 2, 2010 Author Share Posted November 2, 2010 Still much more better than Google Chrome version rows! Weird, the first thing that came to my mind was a comparison with google chrome... I guess the guys at google simply want to imply that their browser is the most advanced... maybe there is a google chrome 9 before an IE9? *grins* Well, but Google Chrome is only one product, so it doesn't really matter if it's named "Google Chrome 89" tomorrow, for there are no other "apps" (paid ones from the developer) that build on top of it, at least none I know of or you need to keep track of regarding compatibility) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 The primary problem with synchronizing version numbers is that we do not always release products at the same time. For instance we released IP.Nexus 1.0.0 today - I think that would look a bit odd being released for the first time as version "3.1.x" or something like that. Maybe we can revisit this with the next major IPB update to see if we can think of clearer way to version things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikadon Posted November 3, 2010 Author Share Posted November 3, 2010 The primary problem with synchronizing version numbers is that we do not always release products at the same time. For instance we released IP.Nexus 1.0.0 today - I think that would look a bit odd being released for the first time as version "3.1.x" or something like that. Maybe we can revisit this with the next major IPB update to see if we can think of clearer way to version things. Yes, that's a point. If you were selling IP. Nexus 3.1 today it would seem a bit strange that it's a new product. Still I thought that IPB 4 could/would be a more or less total rewrite, but it seems this won't happen since by then we are at least a few major numbers higher ;) It's a balancing act and as I said it's not of any real importance, it's just a bit strange and confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 We could go with version codenames, like Microsoft does (or rather, did). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nityananda Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 We could go with version codenames, like Microsoft does (or rather, did). IPB - Codename BeatsTheSocksofVBYetAgain Hmm .. yeah I like it ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olivier Turbis Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Codename Olivier Turbis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.72c24494603afd7a572d55d4a71e4af2.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.