• NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 months ago

    TIL the version numbering scheme changed. LibreOffice 24 is the next major version after LibreOffice 7.

  • pukeko@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m still saucy (in magnitude, bechamel not mole) that the version numbering is yy.n (24.2) and not yy.nn (24.02). The actual versioning combines the “was there a version .1?” problem with a sorting issue if there’s both 24.2 and 24.10.

      • pukeko@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        If that’s the case, I’m less saucy, but my understanding was that the numbers were based on the release month. (Noting for emphasis that I cannot overstate the absolutely minimal nature of my irritation and that it doesn’t detract even a whisker from my appreciation of Libreoffice! It’s almost, but not quite, tongue in cheek.)

          • pukeko@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            It appears that it is. The first version, February-based, is 24.2. The next scheduled version is 24.8, scheduled for release in August.

            • Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Yeah you are right. For some reason I thought I had seen 24.1 but i was mistaken. Stupid naming scheme this since 24.2 and 24.8 sound like v2 and v8 of the 24.x release. Should have just used 24.mm just like the rest of the foss world does and as you suggested it should be

              • pukeko@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Upvoting not because you agreed with me but because of the relief of discovering my flagrantly innocuous frustration might have a kernel of justification.

      • Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        They aren’t using semantic numbering though. They using ‘yy.m.patch’ instead of ‘yy.mm.patch’ as the scheme so it looks like semantic without being semantic which is causing all the confusion. The next release is shown as 24.8

    • Michal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Why single zero though? Why not 24.002? With single 0 you will still encounter sorting issue past version 24.99 (if there was one).

      • Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well I think it should be a single 0 because Ubuntu’s naming has now established the standard that if the second part of the name suggests month, it is written using two numbers eg 23.10, 24.04, etc. 10 is used for October and 04 is used for April.

      • pukeko@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Let’s see.

        Bearnaise
        Bechamel
        Apple
        Pesto
        Ketchup
        Sweet BBQ
        Chimichurri
        Gravy
        Panang
        Romesco
        Tabasco
        Mustard BBQ
        Vinegar BBQ
        Mustard
        Mole
        Garum

        The scale admittedly ramps up exponentially at the end there.

  • akamar@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Why not SemVer? It would look so simple and logical. I don’t need to know the release year as an user, stability and convenience is what I looking for. I can decide, update this thing it not, just by looking at major version number, but date tells me nothing about backward compatibility

    • h54@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      but date tells me nothing about backward compatibility

      The date IS the major/minor version. Knowing when the thing was released is bonus metadata. A lot of people find it useful.

      • akamar@feddit.cl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Okay, so be it. I want to emphasize that the purpose of numbering has shifted from technical to marketing. For development purposes, it was better before.

        • Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Doesn’t help that the date based release looks a lot like semantic versioning which a confusing a lot of people. Should’ve just used Ubuntu’s standard of ‘yy.mm’ instead of ‘yy.m’