v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "40d Talk:Version number"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Style and structure.) |
(replied) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Great job on the diagram [[User talk:Alya|Alya]]. This pages 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) | Great job on the diagram [[User talk:Alya|Alya]]. This pages 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 — 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? | ||
| + | : — [[User:Alya|Alya]] 18:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 22:22, 21 April 2008
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? 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 Front Row Crew, [1].--Richards 13:11, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Style and structure.
Great job on the diagram Alya. This pages 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.--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 — 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?
- — Alya 18:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)