Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There's that, but it probably fits better into their development model.

If they're continually adding features and not breaking backwards compatibility on a "fixed" timeline, then the major version jumps that Firefox, IE do etc. seem more pointless than anything.

If I've got this application that we're continually developing on and we're using a 2 month lifecycle for development ... at what point does it make sense to jump a major version? Never? What's the point of it then?

It's the fact that we've become accustomed to major versions representing periods of time.

Version numbers should be representative. If it was the case that they used the minor number to represent their two month cycles, then they'd be at 1.11. What's the point of the 1 in that scenario? It's redundant.

The major version increments fit in better with their development lifecycle, so why not use it?



I personally find larger version numbers a bit odd. Generally people tend to work better with smaller numbers. I think the Ubuntu system is pretty good, use the major version for the year and have the month as the minor version. The Chrome 2 month releases could go 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, etc. That way they wouldn't chew through so many numbers. Ultimately I guess projects must go through a reset of their versions before they get to really ridiculous numbers.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: