Why 7-Zip suddenly jumps to version 9 anyway, especially when versions 5 to 8 have never been released? The only significant change was the addition of LZMA2 method for 7z archive, but even then the numbering change is still questionable. In fact, there has never been consistent (if any) rule over when should 7-Zip's major version number get changed, and it is confusing for would be contributors and users.
Although 7-Zip is currently soliciting for monetary donation and need creative marketing to gain sponsors, it is irresponsible for developers to
deceive and insult users using juvenile publicity stunts such as frivolous version skips and jumps. Such foolish prank is the reason why I will **NOT** pay a certain desperate company trying to sell service packs for a buggy operating system, or promote companies who would rather promote superstitions instead of actually making sure their products are working (eg: WinZip, Microsoft Office 14).
If 7-Zip want to salvage any remaining credibility, it should stop making up stupid version numbers **NOW**, and enforce a consistent and rigorous policy on version control. At the minimum, no major version jump unless 7-Zip creates a 7z archive that is not compatible with old versions of 7-Zip, or when 7-Zip start using an incompatible API that can affect third party extensions. Furthermore, a major version jump only takes place when making final software releases, and there must be no version skips on all major and minor public releases, including test versions, with exception of major version change, which causes the first final release to have minor version numbered 0.
As for the existing version numbers, it should go back to a more reasonable major version number, such as 4 or 5, and no higher.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Note that 7-Zip starting from 2003 used such numbers. So 4.65 was something like that:
Year=4, Month = 65 -> 2009.05 (it's near to real release date).
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
That may be your intention, ipavlov, but that convention has never been rigorously enforced. For example, 4.13 beta was released back in 2004-12-14, not 2005. How can **anyone** take the jump to version 9 seriously, when 7-Zip has never properly followed the date-based numbering scheme since 2005? In fact, version 9.07 was not even released in July 2009. It was released a month late!
If 7-Zip should follow a date-based or any kind of convention, it should be well-planned and be applied consistently, which is **not** the case for 7-Zip. Such sloppiness is bad for technical tasks and marketing.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
having read this very personal cooment, three things to add:
- -you miss one important aspect -> version 9.0X is out! So any regression in version-numbering would cause much more harm, than staying with it :-)
- -eating pizza while hacking code into your keyboard can render your keys red! (not to speak about drinking alcohol…)
- -would you be so kind and do not call anyone "stupid" (or the things he does)…? Thanks!
Having said that, can we come back to technical aspects?
Best regards!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> Why 7-Zip suddenly jumps to version 9 anyway, especially when versions 5 to 8 have never been released?
Already discussed: "4" started in 2004, now in 2009 Igor jumped to "9" :-)
> Although 7-Zip is currently soliciting for monetary donation and need
> creative marketing to gain sponsors, it is irresponsible for
> developers to deceive and insult users using juvenile publicity stunts
> such as frivolous version skips and jumps.
Get WingZIP 13 (or is 14 already out ???) and shut up :-D
> Such foolish prank is the reason why I will NOT pay a certain
> desperate company trying to sell service packs for a buggy
> operating system, or promote companies who would rather
> promote superstitions instead of actually making sure their
> products are working (eg: WinZip, Microsoft Office 14).
OK, let's welcome a new DOS user :-)
> If 7-Zip want to salvage any remaining credibility, it should stop
> making up stupid version numbers NOW
oh well :-D
> and enforce a consistent and rigorous policy on version control.
> At the minimum, no major
> version jump unless 7-Zip creates a 7z archive that is not compatible > with old versions of 7-Zip
Done with LZMA2 :-)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Actually now it's Year.Revision scheme. And I want to provide about one revision per month. But It's possible that I can release more revisions, like 9.08, 9.09, 9.10 in one week, if some critical bugs must be fixed.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I also thought how could version 9 can be released. I thought that
it would be a virus but this was true version 9 is cool. The compression
has become more efficient.<br><a href="http://www.greenzeal.co.uk/">survival kits</a>
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I agree with goldart_geo about version number jump.
I think that version numbers provide information abount the amount of software functionalities and changes (major version number changes => major software changes, minor version number changes => minor software changes).
If you want to provide information about the release date, I think you should provide it in a separate manner, for example using a build number or an explicit date.
Following these guidelines 7-Zip 9.10 beta (2009-12-22) should be named in one of the following manner:
Why 7-Zip suddenly jumps to version 9 anyway, especially when versions 5 to 8 have never been released? The only significant change was the addition of LZMA2 method for 7z archive, but even then the numbering change is still questionable. In fact, there has never been consistent (if any) rule over when should 7-Zip's major version number get changed, and it is confusing for would be contributors and users.
Although 7-Zip is currently soliciting for monetary donation and need creative marketing to gain sponsors, it is irresponsible for developers to
deceive and insult users using juvenile publicity stunts such as frivolous version skips and jumps. Such foolish prank is the reason why I will **NOT** pay a certain desperate company trying to sell service packs for a buggy operating system, or promote companies who would rather promote superstitions instead of actually making sure their products are working (eg: WinZip, Microsoft Office 14).
If 7-Zip want to salvage any remaining credibility, it should stop making up stupid version numbers **NOW**, and enforce a consistent and rigorous policy on version control. At the minimum, no major version jump unless 7-Zip creates a 7z archive that is not compatible with old versions of 7-Zip, or when 7-Zip start using an incompatible API that can affect third party extensions. Furthermore, a major version jump only takes place when making final software releases, and there must be no version skips on all major and minor public releases, including test versions, with exception of major version change, which causes the first final release to have minor version numbered 0.
As for the existing version numbers, it should go back to a more reasonable major version number, such as 4 or 5, and no higher.
Yeah, version numbers make or break a product… Geez… These junk entries should be deleted.
It's simpler to track Year.Month version numbers.
Note that 7-Zip starting from 2003 used such numbers. So 4.65 was something like that:
Year=4, Month = 65 -> 2009.05 (it's near to real release date).
That may be your intention, ipavlov, but that convention has never been rigorously enforced. For example, 4.13 beta was released back in 2004-12-14, not 2005. How can **anyone** take the jump to version 9 seriously, when 7-Zip has never properly followed the date-based numbering scheme since 2005? In fact, version 9.07 was not even released in July 2009. It was released a month late!
If 7-Zip should follow a date-based or any kind of convention, it should be well-planned and be applied consistently, which is **not** the case for 7-Zip. Such sloppiness is bad for technical tasks and marketing.
Hello eberyone,
having read this very personal cooment, three things to add:
- -you miss one important aspect -> version 9.0X is out! So any regression in version-numbering would cause much more harm, than staying with it :-)
- -eating pizza while hacking code into your keyboard can render your keys red! (not to speak about drinking alcohol…)
- -would you be so kind and do not call anyone "stupid" (or the things he does)…? Thanks!
Having said that, can we come back to technical aspects?
Best regards!
Each developer take version control as it want! Sincerely I like 9 verion, sounds really mature ;)
goldart_geo wrote:
> Why 7-Zip suddenly jumps to version 9 anyway, especially when versions 5 to 8 have never been released?
Already discussed: "4" started in 2004, now in 2009 Igor jumped to "9" :-)
> Although 7-Zip is currently soliciting for monetary donation and need
> creative marketing to gain sponsors, it is irresponsible for
> developers to deceive and insult users using juvenile publicity stunts
> such as frivolous version skips and jumps.
Get WingZIP 13 (or is 14 already out ???) and shut up :-D
> Such foolish prank is the reason why I will NOT pay a certain
> desperate company trying to sell service packs for a buggy
> operating system, or promote companies who would rather
> promote superstitions instead of actually making sure their
> products are working (eg: WinZip, Microsoft Office 14).
OK, let's welcome a new DOS user :-)
> If 7-Zip want to salvage any remaining credibility, it should stop
> making up stupid version numbers NOW
oh well :-D
> and enforce a consistent and rigorous policy on version control.
> At the minimum, no major
> version jump unless 7-Zip creates a 7z archive that is not compatible > with old versions of 7-Zip
Done with LZMA2 :-)
Please stop this stupid thread.
Its very easy for me. If goldart_geo believe that he can doing this better than igor, then, please, make your own file compressor.
If you dont like it, dont use it.
I was searching why the version number jumped from 4.65 to 9.07, and this thread provided me with the answer (yy.mm version numbers, like ubuntu).
Actually now it's Year.Revision scheme. And I want to provide about one revision per month. But It's possible that I can release more revisions, like 9.08, 9.09, 9.10 in one week, if some critical bugs must be fixed.
> I was searching why the version number jumped from 4.65 to 9.07
It jumped from 4.65 to 9.00 only - you missed 7 buggy Alpha's ;-)
http://sf.net/projects/sevenzip/files/
2 of them are still ^^^ here
I also thought how could version 9 can be released. I thought that
it would be a virus but this was true version 9 is cool. The compression
has become more efficient.<br><a href="http://www.greenzeal.co.uk/">survival kits</a>
I agree with goldart_geo about version number jump.
I think that version numbers provide information abount the amount of software functionalities and changes (major version number changes => major software changes, minor version number changes => minor software changes).
If you want to provide information about the release date, I think you should provide it in a separate manner, for example using a build number or an explicit date.
Following these guidelines 7-Zip 9.10 beta (2009-12-22) should be named in one of the following manner:
- 7-Zip v4.66.b2009-12-22
- 7-Zip v5.0 b091222
- 7-Zip v4.66 (2009-12-22)
- 7-Zip v5.0 (2009-12-22)`
lio_ wrote:
> I agree with goldart_geo about version number jump.
Feel free to do, but please DON'T:
* Post very same stuff 5 times
* Bump old announcements