[josm-dev] Introduce versioning scheme
bastikln at googlemail.com
Mon Feb 8 20:49:29 GMT 2010
I was wondering, why we still have revision numbers for the releases. I
assume, most users won't know the concept of software revisions (and
don't care) but are much more familiar with handy version numbers.
The fact that the version of the plugins is one magnitude higher than
the JOSM number, has caused some confusion, as well.
It would be a little more work for the maintainer, but I think it's
For the last 10 tested versions it could look like this, for example:
(Start with some arbitrary positive number as minor version and
increment the minor version for each new tested. Bug fix follow ups
could get a third level number. A Zero as major version would indicate
the beta state and that bugs are to be expected. Finally append the
I am open for other suggestions, though.
JOSM has a lot of unconventional behavior (e.g. editing modes, right
mouse click panning, the whole Java handling, webkit installation,
etc.). The revision numbers alone are not a big deal, but the small
hurdles add up and at each stage, a certain fraction of users gives up.
It would be nice, if we could also reach more people with only little
Interesting, there has been a release in each month.
r1566 | 2009-04-30 15:59:56 +0200 (Thu, 30 Apr 2009)
r1607 | 2009-05-20 16:08:00 +0200 (Wed, 20 May 2009)
r1669 | 2009-06-14 17:34:52 +0200 (Sun, 14 Jun 2009)
r1788 | 2009-07-14 18:20:56 +0200 (Tue, 14 Jul 2009)
r1981 | 2009-08-18 15:21:37 +0200 (Tue, 18 Aug 2009)
r2221 | 2009-09-30 21:04:36 +0200 (Wed, 30 Sep 2009)
r2255 | 2009-10-07 21:25:15 +0200 (Wed, 07 Oct 2009)
r2552 | 2009-11-30 00:02:22 +0100 (Mon, 30 Nov 2009)
r2554 | 2009-11-30 13:48:36 +0100 (Mon, 30 Nov 2009)
r2561 | 2009-12-01 21:37:23 +0100 (Tue, 01 Dec 2009)
- no, wait - December doesn't count and January is just over.. :)
More information about the josm-dev