I wonder, what are your long term plans with Geany? Do you have any larger roadmap and ideas, what do you want to do with it? What can we expect in the future :)?
Late reply ;-)
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:51:47 +0100 Filip Gruszczyński gruszczy@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder, what are your long term plans with Geany? Do you have any larger roadmap and ideas, what do you want to do with it? What can we expect in the future :)?
For now (I think) we're rounding off the features and bugs so sometime we can release v1.0. Not sure about the long term. (See TODO).
Regards, Nick
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:44:42 +0200, Thomas wrote:
Nick Treleaven schrieb:
so sometime we can release v1.0.
No, don't! :P
Haha.
@Filip: sorry, I missed that mail completely.
In addition to Nick's answer, apart from the list in the TODO file, there is no big master plan for the far future (other than the usual taking over the world).
About 1.0: I personally don't think so much of version numbers, they are often over-rated in my opinion. Version numbers are important to separate and ease identifying releases but the only real requirement for this is that version numbers are different, ideally increasing (:D). But for me, it doesn't mean much whether it's 0.17 or 1.1 or 1.5.3 or 22.5.2.7. In contrary, sometimes I get the impression people expect wonders once a project reaches a version 1.0 or they expect some super major changes after reaching that version number. For me, it's just the code which counts, not which version number it has.
Regards, Enrico
2009/7/15 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:44:42 +0200, Thomas wrote:
Nick Treleaven schrieb:
so sometime we can release v1.0.
No, don't! :P
Haha.
@Filip: sorry, I missed that mail completely.
In addition to Nick's answer, apart from the list in the TODO file, there is no big master plan for the far future (other than the usual taking over the world).
About 1.0: I personally don't think so much of version numbers, they are often over-rated in my opinion. Version numbers are important to separate and ease identifying releases but the only real requirement for this is that version numbers are different, ideally increasing (:D).
For why should it be increasing? Perhaps Geany could start a trend of decreasing version numbers starting from version 2^32 and when it reaches zero that would indeed be a milestone ;-)
But for
me, it doesn't mean much whether it's 0.17 or 1.1 or 1.5.3 or 22.5.2.7. In contrary, sometimes I get the impression people expect wonders once a project reaches a version 1.0 or they expect some super major changes after reaching that version number. For me, it's just the code which counts, not which version number it has.
Exactly right!!! Moving to version 1.0 is a marketing issue to announce to the world that it is ready for mainstream use (yeah even OSS has marketing, its just not so overt). When I am searching for software for a particular job I do tend to consider the version when deciding which ones to spend the effort downloading, building and testing and 0.17 does look low. So the only reason to go to 1.0 would be to enhance your marketing in support of world domination!!
Regards, Enrico
-- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
Could we skip to version 1.1? I hate buying the .0 version of products?
Michael
_____
From: geany-bounces@uvena.de [mailto:geany-bounces@uvena.de] On Behalf Of Lex Trotman Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:01 PM To: Geany general discussion list Subject: Re: [Geany] Quo vadis, Geany?
2009/7/15 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:44:42 +0200, Thomas wrote:
Nick Treleaven schrieb:
so sometime we can release v1.0.
No, don't! :P
Haha.
@Filip: sorry, I missed that mail completely.
In addition to Nick's answer, apart from the list in the TODO file, there is no big master plan for the far future (other than the usual taking over the world).
About 1.0: I personally don't think so much of version numbers, they are often over-rated in my opinion. Version numbers are important to separate and ease identifying releases but the only real requirement for this is that version numbers are different, ideally increasing (:D).
For why should it be increasing? Perhaps Geany could start a trend of decreasing version numbers starting from version 2^32 and when it reaches zero that would indeed be a milestone ;-)
But for me, it doesn't mean much whether it's 0.17 or 1.1 or 1.5.3 or 22.5.2.7. In contrary, sometimes I get the impression people expect wonders once a project reaches a version 1.0 or they expect some super major changes after reaching that version number. For me, it's just the code which counts, not which version number it has.
Exactly right!!! Moving to version 1.0 is a marketing issue to announce to the world that it is ready for mainstream use (yeah even OSS has marketing, its just not so overt). When I am searching for software for a particular job I do tend to consider the version when deciding which ones to spend the effort downloading, building and testing and 0.17 does look low. So the only reason to go to 1.0 would be to enhance your marketing in support of world domination!!
Regards, Enrico
-- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
_______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:00:47 +1000 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/15 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:44:42 +0200, Thomas wrote:
Nick Treleaven schrieb:
so sometime we can release v1.0.
No, don't! :P
Haha!
For why should it be increasing? Perhaps Geany could start a trend of decreasing version numbers starting from version 2^32 and when it reaches zero that would indeed be a milestone ;-)
Then continue with negative numbers ;-)
Personally I'm not updating Firefox again 'til they release 3.5 + 1.1i.
0.17 does look low. So the only reason to go to 1.0 would be to enhance your marketing in support of world domination!!
Agreed, it's worth it for the marketing benefits.
Regards, Nick
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:45:27 +0100 Nick Treleaven nick.treleaven@btinternet.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:00:47 +1000 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/15 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:44:42 +0200, Thomas wrote:
Nick Treleaven schrieb:
so sometime we can release v1.0.
No, don't! :P
Haha!
For why should it be increasing? Perhaps Geany could start a trend of decreasing version numbers starting from version 2^32 and when it reaches zero that would indeed be a milestone ;-)
Then continue with negative numbers ;-)
Personally I'm not updating Firefox again 'til they release 3.5 + 1.1i.
Why not in a form like this? r * e^(i*phi)
0.17 does look low. So the only reason to go to 1.0 would be to enhance your marketing in support of world domination!!
Agreed, it's worth it for the marketing benefits.
I doubt that there is really a benefit for marketing. At least inside the group of users Geany is addressing.
Cheers, Frank
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:45:27 +0100 Nick Treleaven nick.treleaven@btinternet.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:00:47 +1000 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/15 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:44:42 +0200, Thomas wrote:
Nick Treleaven schrieb:
so sometime we can release v1.0.
No, don't! :P
Haha!
For why should it be increasing? Perhaps Geany could start a trend of decreasing version numbers starting from version 2^32 and when it reaches zero that would indeed be a milestone ;-)
Then continue with negative numbers ;-)
Personally I'm not updating Firefox again 'til they release 3.5 + 1.1i.
Why not in a form like this? r * e^(i*phi)
0.17 does look low. So the only reason to go to 1.0 would be to enhance your marketing in support of world domination!!
Agreed, it's worth it for the marketing benefits.
I doubt that there is really a benefit for marketing. At least inside the group of users Geany is addressing.
Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/
Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
I find your conclusion jarring. I think you're relying on an underlying
flawed belief in the deterministic nature of market, which, I submit, though biased to be completely unproven -- perhaps the market is bigger than currently probed, but how will you know without marketing?
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Ben West mrgenixus@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.dewrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:45:27 +0100 Nick Treleaven nick.treleaven@btinternet.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:00:47 +1000 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/15 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:44:42 +0200, Thomas wrote:
Nick Treleaven schrieb: > so sometime we can release v1.0.
No, don't! :P
Haha!
For why should it be increasing? Perhaps Geany could start a trend of decreasing version numbers starting from version 2^32 and when it reaches zero that would indeed be a milestone ;-)
Then continue with negative numbers ;-)
Personally I'm not updating Firefox again 'til they release 3.5 + 1.1i.
Why not in a form like this? r * e^(i*phi)
0.17 does look low. So the only reason to go to 1.0 would be to enhance your marketing in support of world domination!!
Agreed, it's worth it for the marketing benefits.
I doubt that there is really a benefit for marketing. At least inside the group of users Geany is addressing.
Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/
Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
I find your conclusion jarring. I think you're relying on an underlying
flawed belief in the deterministic nature of market, which, I submit, though biased to be completely unproven -- perhaps the market is bigger than currently probed, but how will you know without marketing? I was going to add that this is a joke. is it funny?
-- /ˈmɪstər/ /ˈdʒɛnəsɪs/@/dʒi/ /meɪl/ /dɒt/ /kɒm/ Benjamin West
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:11:55 -0600 Ben West mrgenixus@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:45:27 +0100 Nick Treleaven nick.treleaven@btinternet.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:00:47 +1000 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/15 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:44:42 +0200, Thomas wrote:
Nick Treleaven schrieb: > so sometime we can release v1.0.
No, don't! :P
Haha!
For why should it be increasing? Perhaps Geany could start a trend of decreasing version numbers starting from version 2^32 and when it reaches zero that would indeed be a milestone ;-)
Then continue with negative numbers ;-)
Personally I'm not updating Firefox again 'til they release 3.5 + 1.1i.
Why not in a form like this? r * e^(i*phi)
0.17 does look low. So the only reason to go to 1.0 would be to enhance your marketing in support of world domination!!
Agreed, it's worth it for the marketing benefits.
I doubt that there is really a benefit for marketing. At least inside the group of users Geany is addressing.
I find your conclusion jarring. I think you're relying on an underlying flawed belief in the deterministic nature of market, which, I submit, though biased to be completely unproven -- perhaps the market is bigger than currently probed, but how will you know without marketing?
Sure. There has been no poll or something like that. But this being said from my point of view Geany target group is something about a normal developer which should be familiar with numbering in OSS shouldn't care much about whether there was an 1.0 or not. Its nly the featurset not the version number which is counting.
Cheers, Frank
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:21:03 +0200 Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Geany target group is something about a normal developer which should be familiar with numbering in OSS shouldn't care much about whether there was an 1.0 or not. Its nly the featurset not the version number which is counting.
Well, a 1.0 release usually indicates better stability than an 0.x release.
Regards, Nick
Nick Treleaven schrieb:
Well, a 1.0 release usually indicates better stability than an 0.x release.
Regards, Nick
That's bullshit, to be honest.
Version numbers don't mean anything, except that between version X and version Y progress happened (if Y > X, that is).
Best regards.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Thomas Martitzthomas.martitz@student.htw-berlin.de wrote:
Nick Treleaven schrieb:
Well, a 1.0 release usually indicates better stability than an 0.x release.
Regards, Nick
That's bullshit, to be honest.
Well, going back to the marketing angle, I would say that there are still a lot of people who *perceive* a 1.0 release to have better stability (more suitable for production deployment, etc.) than 0.x. So I'm with Nick if I'm allowed to read "indicates" as "gives the external appearance of".
Also, while I agree with some of the other comments that programmers are less likely to care whether a version number is below 1, I would guess that there are still a significant number of programmers who do. I'm not saying that Geany should jump to version 1.0 to try to capture these programmers, just that I think these programmers exist.
John
John Yeung píše v Po 27. 07. 2009 v 09:30 -0400:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Thomas Martitzthomas.martitz@student.htw-berlin.de wrote:
Nick Treleaven schrieb:
Well, a 1.0 release usually indicates better stability than an 0.x release.
Regards, Nick
That's bullshit, to be honest.
Well, going back to the marketing angle, I would say that there are still a lot of people who *perceive* a 1.0 release to have better stability (more suitable for production deployment, etc.) than 0.x. So I'm with Nick if I'm allowed to read "indicates" as "gives the external appearance of".
Also, while I agree with some of the other comments that programmers are less likely to care whether a version number is below 1, I would guess that there are still a significant number of programmers who do. I'm not saying that Geany should jump to version 1.0 to try to capture these programmers, just that I think these programmers exist.
John _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
Could anybody tell me, what are they arguing about?
Geany looks really stable for me whole time I'm using it (about 1 year). It never crashed, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be released as 1.0 due to stability. Or am I missing something?
Regards, Daniel
2009/7/27 John Yeung gallium.arsenide@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Thomas Martitzthomas.martitz@student.htw-berlin.de wrote:
Nick Treleaven schrieb:
Well, a 1.0 release usually indicates better stability than an 0.x release.
Regards, Nick
That's bullshit, to be honest.
Well, going back to the marketing angle, I would say that there are still a lot of people who *perceive* a 1.0 release to have better stability (more suitable for production deployment, etc.) than 0.x. So I'm with Nick if I'm allowed to read "indicates" as "gives the external appearance of".
Also, while I agree with some of the other comments that programmers are less likely to care whether a version number is below 1, I would guess that there are still a significant number of programmers who do. I'm not saying that Geany should jump to version 1.0 to try to capture these programmers, just that I think these programmers exist.
All of the above is true and let me add my two cents worth. When I am trying to decide on which tool I am going to use I don't have infinite time to download and test each one, so I look at version number as an indication of how complete and stable the *developers* think it is. If the developers don't think it is stable or complete I usually won't spend time on it. This is on the assumption that they are following the (unwritten) normal numbering practice.
A quick very unscientific poll (at the pub) says many programmers also use version as one of the indicators for what to try, and a version 1.x is more likely to be considered favorably. (comment from some that they would wait for 1.1, they must be using commercial software ;-)
So to indicate to casual/time challenged users that Geany is stable and feature complete I would be in favor of it going to 1.0.
Cheers Lex
BTW I found Geany because it happened to be part of a lightweight distribution rather than actually searching for an editor so its version number didn't matter.
John _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:00:47 +1000 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
About 1.0: I personally don't think so much of version numbers, they are often over-rated in my opinion. Version numbers are important to separate and ease identifying releases but the only real requirement for this is that version numbers are different, ideally increasing (:D).
For why should it be increasing? Perhaps Geany could start a trend of decreasing version numbers starting from version 2^32 and when it reaches zero that would indeed be a milestone ;-)
This is something, only Donald E. Knuth can do .... but well... he is already using some other for his famous tool ;)
Cheers, Frank