Factorio Forums

slpwnd wrote:Update (26. August 2016): We have just released 0.14, so we updated the roadmap to show our plans for 0.15 and partially also for 0.16 (which will become 1.0 when stabilised).

Why you want to made such a big jump from 0.16 to 1.0? You left more than eighty versions unused. How do you thing about renaming 0.15 to 0.42 and 0.16 to 0.72?
The jump from 0.72 to 1.0 is much easier now

Xenomorph wrote:

slpwnd wrote:Update (26. August 2016): We have just released 0.14, so we updated the roadmap to show our plans for 0.15 and partially also for 0.16 (which will become 1.0 when stabilised).

Why you want to made such a big jump from 0.16 to 1.0? You left more than eighty versions unused. How do you thing about renaming 0.15 to 0.42 and 0.16 to 0.72?
The jump from 0.72 to 1.0 is much easier now

Jumping to next version like that is common, you don't go to 0.72 after 0.32 because it make no sense and people migth wonder where are those version you skip. You need to be consistent. Jump to 1.0 usually mean release.

This explains it: Software versioning

Ugh, don't. I literally had to explain to a room of software developers that there is such thing as version 1.0.0.10 and they weren't limited to version 9.9.9.9 or 9,000 versions (1.0.0.0 to 9.9.9.9). Unfortunately it was too late as they'd already implemented a "patch number" so now we have version 4.0.6.3 [3] but in all the installers this is of course just 4.0.6.3 so when we install patches Windows goes "oh, it's the same version, I'll just repair it" and it doesn't actually update. I had to rewrite the updater and put in a bit to completely uninstall the old version AND remove all the files for it so it is forced to install the patch. Also they treat is as a decimal so we have 3063 "release" versions (4.0.6.8, 4.0.6.9, 4.0.7.0, etc).

A room full of developers, all with degrees is development, and not one of them knew versioning. I don't even.

Deadly-Bagel wrote:Ugh, don't. I literally had to explain to a room of software developers that there is such thing as version 1.0.0.10 and they weren't limited to version 9.9.9.9 or 9,999 versions. Unfortunately it was too late as they'd already implemented a "patch number" so now we have version 4.0.6.3 [3] but in all the installers this is of course just 4.0.6.3 so when we install patches Windows goes "oh, it's the same version, I'll just repair it" and it doesn't actually update. I had to rewrite the updater and put in a bit to completely uninstall the old version AND remove all the files for it so it is forced to install the patch. Also they treat is as a decimal so we have 4063 "release" versions (4.0.6.8, 4.0.6.9, 4.0.7.0, etc).

A room full of developers, all with degrees is development, and not one of them knew versioning. I don't even.

What devs if they don't even know versioning.

I moved on from that versioning to date versioning.

eg. 20170110 or 2017011001 or 20170110140235

Date versioning is okay when the product isn't going to change much (such as Factorio post-release), there may be a few balance tweaks and bugfixes, maybe compatibility for new OS and/or hardware, but for constant development products with new features being added (such as MMOs or MOBAs) a Major, Minor, Build, Revision versioning makes more sense so you can easily see the severity of an update.

Of course there's nothing to stop you putting the date version in the Revision number.

Deadly-Bagel wrote:Ugh, don't. I literally had to explain to a room of software developers that there is such thing as version 1.0.0.10 and they weren't limited to version 9.9.9.9 or 9,000 versions (1.0.0.0 to 9.9.9.9).

I have a feeling you wouldn't be happy about the three shared gems I pushed into production today versioned "0.1.0.sf".

Some of the planned thigs are just amazing

Deadly-Bagel wrote:Ugh, don't. I literally had to explain to a room of software developers that there is such thing as version 1.0.0.10 and they weren't limited to version 9.9.9.9 or 9,000 versions (1.0.0.0 to 9.9.9.9). Unfortunately it was too late as they'd already implemented a "patch number" so now we have version 4.0.6.3 [3] but in all the installers this is of course just 4.0.6.3 so when we install patches Windows goes "oh, it's the same version, I'll just repair it" and it doesn't actually update. I had to rewrite the updater and put in a bit to completely uninstall the old version AND remove all the files for it so it is forced to install the patch. Also they treat is as a decimal so we have 3063 "release" versions (4.0.6.8, 4.0.6.9, 4.0.7.0, etc).

A room full of developers, all with degrees is development, and not one of them knew versioning. I don't even.

well, sometimes versioning is not problem of devs, but of marketing.

that's why ve deciced to internaly (devs) use just revision number, and use specific number to mark "test version".
if you take version number (regular, that also windows use)
X.Y.Z.R
X.Y - is for marketing, if they decide today version is 1.5 but tomorow will be 2.0 - because it's big (you know, new shiny icons, or whatever "important stuff") let be it
Z.R - is for developer team Z = 999 in is daily snaphost for testing and future development, other numbers (always starting with 0, when X.X changes) are for patch releases, and last number is code revision in branch

since in windows versioning system, single number is limited to 65535 (16bit usigned), you might say it's not enough, but for small teams it's large space, and when it comes to hitting 65535, we can always use Z for expansion

anyways, i don't think there is any ultimate or best versioning or version naming system, companies use what fits their needs best (or what they think is best)

look at autocad, they named first their product by numbers, then by years, yet internaly numbers stayed (2000 is Autocad 15), same goes for office or even windows (although they changed windows 10 version from 8.2 - original version, as successor of 8.1 - to version 10)

It has been a long time since the 26th of August 2016 now, and I think that I am not alone in wondering if there is any new information coming soon about the next release?

We who have been attentive have heard the rumours about "not before february 2017", and we've also blindly accepted it, knowing from the past how amazingly well done every new pointrelease is. It would still be awesome if we could at least get a hint of when the first experimental will touch down, maybe renew the roadmap post for this as things might have changed some over the past 6 months.

Looking forward to this alot!

What are you talking about? Loads of information has been disclosed in FFF articles.

Devs have also stated they have no clue when will it release besides that it's almost certain it won't be before around two months.

hoho wrote:What are you talking about? Loads of information has been disclosed in FFF articles.

Devs have also stated they have no clue when will it release besides that it's almost certain it won't be before around two months.

No information about when the point release will be released, and the time is close to the only little wage information we have on that. FFF is only a blog containing the thoughts from the devs about a specific subject each week and rumours about different features that might or might not be. This thread is the official roadmap, and a roadmap usually contains information about presumed deadlines.

The last official information in the main post came 6 months ago, that is enough time to be allowed to ask if there is any new information since then.

xng wrote:This thread is the official roadmap, and a roadmap usually contains information about presumed deadlines.

They will not disclose internal deadlines, the shitstorm they will get if they won't make it is humongus.

It will be ready when it is ready, you can ask all you want but that's just how it is, and how it should be imho.

And if the roadmap is still on point, there's no need to change it anyways.


Also:

Klonan wrote:Nobody knows, somewhere between a couple of months and a couple of months

enjoy: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=40025

leilders wrote:They will not disclose internal deadlines, the shitstorm they will get if they won't make it is humongus.

Which is exactly why you go out with changes to information in good time, like before that general discussion post, the info that the customers expected was about right, was around february 2017.

If no new information comes, your famous shitstorm will commense anyway, and it is really not like they suddenly realise a couple of weeks before release that it will take many more months.

It is kind of hard for me to see why asking this simple question would make anyone waiting for this patch annoyed. It is in the interest of all of us that have joined this early access, and it is in the interest of the developer not to let the hype from rumours and word of mouth to get out of hand, and the only way to do that is to keep people updated. Answering this question in non official threads like generel discussions will not reach those who look for the answer in the official thread.

If a couple of months or more from now is true, it means that they already know it will not come in february and can easily correct that rumour buy changing to another earliest possible time. People doesn't get as disappointed from changed deadlines as they get from expecting something and not getting any information without asking extra times and having to explain oneself to people that seem to take asking about release dates as an insult of some kind.

If the developer feels it is an insult that one of their "kickstarters" asks for an update to the roadmap after waiting 6 months, they should say so, and if they don't they could just add the update here, or say they don't have time to change the roadmap information once per 6 months.

What´s the big deal about 0.15? Look at the game right now. It´s far beyond awesome already and I cant believe they dont call it complete right now.

If the base game 0.14 at the moment is not enough for you, make sure you have tried bob´s and angel mods. Those bring such unbelievable amounts of extra content to the game they might as well have called it Factorio 2.

Mendel wrote:What´s the big deal about 0.15? Look at the game right now. It´s far beyond awesome already and I cant believe they dont call it complete right now.

If the base game 0.14 at the moment is not enough for you, make sure you have tried bob´s and angel mods. Those bring such unbelievable amounts of extra content to the game they might as well have called it Factorio 2.

Thank you Mendel for your input and you're right, the game is the most amazing game ever made. Even my steam review says so. That being said, there are many new expected features that will improve on that awesomeness, and all I asked was if there are any updates since 6 months ago, and I was not asking in general so I don't really expect an answer from someone else that sits on the exact same information as I do.

xng wrote:Which is exactly why you go out with changes to information in good time, like before that general discussion post, the info that the customers expected was about right, was around february 2017.

A looong time ago I think they said they were *hoping* to get something by then but they said they can never be sure. Since then they've said on numerous occasions that the date is not solid and will likely shift further back.

I'd be rather surprised if there would be any sort of shitstorm about delayed releases. I've been playing the game for over three years now and have never seen any sort of shitstorm due to "slipped" deadlines.

xng wrote:all I asked was if there are any updates since 6 months ago, and I was not asking in general so I don't really expect an answer from someone else that sits on the exact same information as I do.

In my mind, the answer is quite simple. If there was any updates available, they would have been posted already. The team has a pretty good record of posting information when it's available. So What's available is already posted, therefore, the answer to your question would be a simple "nothing more than what's already out there". No rudeness intended. At all.

This is what I ment

realm174 wrote:a simple "nothing more than what's already out there". No rudeness intended. At all.

realm174 wrote:... the answer to your question would be a simple "nothing more than what's already out there"...

leilders wrote:This is what I ment

Fair enough =)

I think we can all at least agree on that 0.15 is a strongly anticipated point release, and personally I feel it can not come soon enough!