Editing 40d Talk:Version number

The first number indicates [[Dwarf Fortress]] being in either alpha/beta state, it will be "1" when it is no longer in beta.
:Are you sure? [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 10:42, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::Definitely sure. Thanks for clarifying some of those points, I was surprised it was so simple. Toady did comment that the second number in the version name is an approximate percentage of how much of Dwarf fortress is done. That's quite interesting don't you think? You hear this ten minutes into his interview on [http://cdn.libsyn.com/geeknights/20080115.mp3''Front Row Crew''], [http://cdn.libsyn.com/geeknights/20080115.mp3].--[[User:Richards|Richards]] 13:11, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Style and structure. ==

Great job on the diagram [[User talk:Alya|Alya]]. This page looks very professional now. I re-edited some points to make them more clear and added a link to the release-cycle page on wikipedia explaining the development terms. I'll try to make the diagram more prominent and add some links.--[[User:Richards|Richards]] 16:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thank you for the compliment! However, I fear I don't agree with your edits (which ''almost completely'' reverted my non-diagram changes!).
: In particular:
:* The style is different from the rest of the wiki. Usually, articles start with a sentence defining or describing the page title, with the page title close to the start and set in bold. Headings usually don't end in colons and list items usually aren't capitalized.
:* There's a contradiction on the number of pieces a version number has: the text says four, the list and diagram show five. While there are indeed four period-separated sections in the number, the bug-fix letter and the bloat number have nothing to do with each other. This means there are five different semantical pieces. I think the semantical structure of the number is more important that the physical one &mdash; that it's in the format 0.12.345.67x is immediately visible to the reader, what the individual part mean is not.
:* The longer texts in the diagram seem less clear than those of my version; I don't see what the words "have been" and "currently" add to the understanding and in diagrams it's usually best to have the shortest phrasing which is still clear. The phrasing "The ... number is the total number ..." also seems to be unnecessarily complex, mentioning that it is a number twice. On the other hand, abbreviating "required" seems less clear than writing it out and I don't see what it gains.
:* I don't think the diagram needs to be more prominent. It is already likely to draw the attention of the reader before the main body of text. 
:* The part about going gold refers to a final piece of software shipping and does not seem to apply to DF.
: I'm sorry, but I'd much rather return to something closer to my last revision. To what extent do you agree/disagree with the reasoning above? 
: &mdash; [[User:Alya|Alya]] 18:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree with your style suggestions. 

::While writing and explaining the version number as being in "four-pieces", I had in mind the numerical sections between the periods. You make sense, we can refer to it as having 'five semantical sections' or being a four-piece version number with an alphabetical appendage. Keep the 'currently in an alpha/beta release' in the diagram. The version number refers to the game, and the game is "Currently in alpha/beta", I'll shorten it and remove the 'have been' tags.

::When the version number becomes "1", Toady is going to call it something else than a beta. It's a recognizable term to say that by the time dwarf fortress "turns gold", it will have a version number of "1". Do you know another term we can call it? 

::When I wrote about making the diagram more "prominent" the Example was under a sub-heading. It's fine now.

::Tell me what you think and thanks for putting all this thought into this article.--[[User:Richards|Richards]] 20:52, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-What is "The Number" mentioned in the recent dev reports? An estimate of days until version 1.0? --[[User:Corvvs|Corvvs]] 22:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
 The first number indicates [[Dwarf Fortress]] being in either alpha/beta state, it will be "1" when it is no longer in beta.
 :Are you sure? [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 10:42, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
@@ Line 20: / Line 18: @@
 : &mdash; [[User:Alya|Alya]] 18:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
-<br>
+::I agree with your style suggestions.
-I agree with your style suggestions.
-*While writing and explaining the version number as being in "four-pieces", I had in mind the numerical sections between the periods. You make sense, we can refer to it as having 'five semantical sections' or being a four-piece version number with an alphabetical appendage. Keep the 'currently in an alpha/beta release' in the diagram. The version number refers to the game, and the game is "Currently in alpha/beta", I'll shorten it and remove the 'have been' tags.
-*When the version number becomes "1", Toady is going to call it something else than a beta. It's a recognizable term to say that by the time dwarf fortress "turns gold", it will have a version number of "1". Do you know another term we can call it?
-*When I wrote about making the diagram more "prominent" the Example was under a sub-heading. It's fine now.
-Thanks for all the thought that you're putting into the article.--[[User:Richards|Richards]] 20:52, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
-: Thank you. :-)
-: I have changed the style to match the rest of the wiki. Avoiding the number of piece conflict by saying "four numbers and a letter" is a good idea, I've done that.
-: On the "going gold"/version 1 thing, I think we can call it just "version 1 will be released". I've also added a section detailing version 1 to make it clearer when that release will happen.
-: I'm not sure what you mean with the diagram. I can't see much difference between [http://www.dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php?title=Version_number&oldid=23614 my version] and [http://www.dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php?title=Version_number&oldid=23699 yours] regarding to its placement under a subheading.
-: &mdash; [[User:Alya|Alya]] 05:13, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
-::Looks good. Check the next diff to see what I meant by being under a 'subheading', what's the proper word to call those?--[[User:Richards|Richards]] 14:05, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
-I've tried modifying the diagram to split the bugfix count and the OpenGL update count into separate fields, but the table structure is so convoluted that I can't make any sense of it - the mix of CSS widths in "em" units and HTML widths in percentage is rather confusing and should probably be fixed by whoever wrote it in the first place. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
-== DF 2010 ==
+::While writing and explaining the version number as being in "four-pieces", I had in mind the numerical sections between the periods. You make sense, we can refer to it as having 'five semantical sections' or being a four-piece version number with an alphabetical appendage. Keep the 'currently in an alpha/beta release' in the diagram. The version number refers to the game, and the game is "Currently in alpha/beta", I'll shorten it and remove the 'have been' tags.
-Well, the new version number seems a bit..shorter--[[User:Put|Put]] 10:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
+::When the version number becomes "1", Toady is going to call it something else than a beta. It's a recognizable term to say that by the time dwarf fortress "turns gold", it will have a version number of "1". Do you know another term we can call it?
-: Toady's quote from IRC: "new version is just the number of cores + the number of releases on that core count" --[[User:Cooz|Cooz]] 11:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
+::When I wrote about making the diagram more "prominent" the Example was under a sub-heading. It's fine now.
-::Judging from what's happened to [http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html this] page, it looks like "REQUIRED THINGS, OLD BUGS AND PRIORITY REQUESTS", "BLOATS", and "POWER GOALS" have been abandoned entirely. v0.28.181.40d is effectively "0.28.xx" by this naming scheme, and v0.23.130.23a would be "0.23.xx". --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 12:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
-For those wondering, the new version is, officially, '''DF 0.31.01'''.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 20:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
+::Tell me what you think and thanks for putting all this thought into this article.--[[User:Richards|Richards]] 20:52, 21 April 2008 (EDT)