Stop increasing the major version for minor updates

Sidney Just's Avatar

Sidney Just

16 Nov, 2016 11:13 AM

This might sound silly, but can you guys please use minor version numbers for minor versions? Reveal 2 was followed by Reveal 3, a minor bugfix update, which was followed by a minor update that bumped the version to Reveal 4. Can we go back to normal versioning? Reveal 4.0.1, Reveal 4.0.2, Reveal 4.1.x etc?

  1. Support Staff 1 Posted by Tony Arnold on 16 Nov, 2016 11:25 AM

    Tony Arnold's Avatar

    Hi Sidney,

    Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

    Sean went into a bit of detail about our reasoning behind dropping semantic versioning in the introductory blog post for Reveal 2.

    The major impetus behind the change is that we can now release features as they are ready, rather than holding them back for major paid upgrades.

    I know that the last two releases have been bug fix releases, but stick with us, there are bigger features underway that should be released in updates over the next couple of months.

    thanks,

    Tony

  2. 2 Posted by Sidney Just on 16 Nov, 2016 11:30 AM

    Sidney Just's Avatar

    I totally understand the reasoning, but the two aren't mutually exclusive! And don't get me wrong, I really appreciate bugfix updates, in no way am I complaining. I just feel like you could stick to using minor version bumps where it's appropriate and still stick to the 12 months of updates.

  3. Support Staff 3 Posted by Oliver Jones on 16 Nov, 2016 02:31 PM

    Oliver Jones's Avatar

    Hi Sidney,

    Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to know your reason behind wanting more traditional version numbers? Do you feel something is lost by not using semantic versioning? Do you think we should use minor versions for bug fix only releases and increment the major version when we add a new feature?

    As Tony said our intention now is to do quite regular releases. Hopefully once every four to six weeks. Sometimes more frequently if we think a bug fix is a high priority (like the last couple of releases). Each release will contain bug fixes and/or new features as they are ready. Even in the last couple of days 2 small features have been added, and work begun on a more significant one that could appear in the next release.

    The version numbers associated with each release are now quite arbitrary. They just need to be bigger than the previous version to show which release is newest. We chose to use whole numbers as that was simplest. Products like Chrome, Firefox, Sketch, and Framer also use this sort of version numbering system. Though I have noticed Sketch will drop a minor version in on occasion for bug-fixes.

    We could have chosen to use the minor version as the incrementing number. Eg, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 etc. But then the question becomes when do increment the major version?

    Regards

  4. 4 Posted by Sidney Just on 24 Nov, 2016 05:48 PM

    Sidney Just's Avatar

    Hey, sorry for the late response!

    Basically, I think it boils down to personal preference, but from the people around me who also use Reveal, I know that they find this versioning system as confusing and weird as I do. Basically version numbers became pointless with Reveal 2, Ideally I would still like to see dot releases for smaller changes and bufixes. It just seems really weird to see the version number increase that rapidly.

    Maybe if this version numbering system doesn't suit you very well, you could switch to something akin to what JetBrains uses? Reveal 2016.1, Reveal 2016.2, Reveal 2017.1 etc. That seems to fit nicely with what you have in mind for with licensing as well.

  5. 5 Posted by Sidney Just on 24 Nov, 2016 05:59 PM

    Sidney Just's Avatar

    To add to this, the licensing system isn't really clear. For example, initially I wasn't even aware that I basically bought a subscription, I thought a bought a v2. I know others have felt the same way. And people whom I have told "hey, get Reveal 2" came back to me asking what I'm on about and why there is a v3/v4 out already.

    Basically it's all very confusing and it seems to be deliberately designed that way.

  6. Support Staff 6 Posted by Oliver Jones on 27 Nov, 2016 12:09 AM

    Oliver Jones's Avatar

    Hi Sidney

    We certainly didn't deliberately set out to confuse. That is the last thing we wanted to do. We want to be as clear and up-front about why we chose to change licensing and versioning models as we can be.

    The versioning model Jetbrains use was certainly under consideration before we launched Reveal v2. Though in the end we decided to go with the versioning model Sketch, Framer, Firefox & Chrome use. Sketch sometimes also uses point releases for urgent bug fixes and in the future we might do the same.

    We don't consider our licensing model to be a "subscription service" as the software does not require that have an active subscription to function. You can continue to use any of the versions released within your license period in perpetuity. But yes it does have an annualised component to it.

    Your feedback is very helpful to us and it has highlighted that we need to be clearer in our communication regarding our licensing and versioning model.

    Regards

  7. Oliver Jones closed this discussion on 27 Nov, 2016 12:09 AM.

Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.

Keyboard shortcuts

Generic

? Show this help
ESC Blurs the current field

Comment Form

r Focus the comment reply box
^ + ↩ Submit the comment

You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac