So this might seem a bit arbitrary, but I can’t help but wonder why Blender’s version numbers rise so slowly. Blender 2.8 is clearly an enormous revamp which should and is generate as much buzz as possible, and it creeps up from 2.79 to 2.8 like a minor bugfix in other software versioning.
Does this matter? Well, it’s a psychology thing. You want to emphasise the significance of a step and this gradualism rather does the opposite, positively downplaying it. So I’m interested in why the versioning is so timid. Anything after a . indicates a subdivision, a subset. Nobody would be thrilled by, say, iPhone 2.80 replacing iPhone 2.79.
I really think this much of a leap, especially as there is a concern about attracting new users to the fold, ought to be heralded by a new version number. Blender 3, please?
Well I dunno, if a brand new render engine, new interface and new dependency structure isn’t major I don’t know what is.
I’m really excited for 2.8. I have my quibbles (everyone will have whatever they do) but it just feels like, well, like “the blender I’ve been waiting for” since I started dabbling. The nice/weird thing is that unlike, say, anticipating a new movie that turns out to be rubbish, the Alpha builds allow us to anticipate by actually doing and I cannot wait to start using it properly.
The 3 versions mentioned above refers to semantic versioning which is a standard way people are meant to increment the version number based on what has changed. The structure is MAJOR.MINOR.REVISION
The major version introduces changes that break backwards compatibility. Already Blender is doing it wrong. Try opening a 2.8 file in 2.4. Not going to happen. What this generally means is that big changes would require a major version bump.
The minor version indicates API changes such as added features, but doesn’t break compatability with previous minor versions. This is much like how Blender uses 2.7x versions, with some inconsistencies.
Revision changes should only fix bugs.
In terms of semantic versioning, it would make sense to label Blender 2.8 as Blender 28, though the versioning of historical versions of Blender means there’s nowhere near 28 major versions of it.
Not only is this important for users expectations as you’ve highlighted @jaxtraw, but programs can also be built around these assumptions. Minor version updates to blender should not require plugins to be updated, whereas major version updates might. Patch updates could be installed automatically if Blender had an install manager.
there is a psychology thing in naming it’s true. beyond a certain point (in games and films it seems to be 3) you drop the numbering and go with the subtitle.
most other software has gone the yearly route max 2018, maya 2018 etc. then they have the patches/service packs. it also matches subscription models and fudges just how little changes year on year.
blender usually releases so often that some forums banned blender release threads.
blender can be quietly confident . there’s already a big buzz about 2.8. people will find it
I’d argue that blender doesn’t need to version the software to reflect big changes because the foundation doesn’t promote the software in the same way that commercial products do.
A lot of the projects that use that type of versioning feel the need to actively promote the different versions they produce. If you paid 500 dollars for version 2.7 of a product, then you might not feel the need to pay a 250 dollar upgrade fee for 2.8 of that software. If the next version is 3.0 instead of 2.8, then it helps sell the idea of that version being a big improvement over the version you have. Basically, they are forced to be more aggressive in how they market in order to make more sales.
On the other hand, each version of blender is free to try. This allows the foundation to passively promote blender. They just put out a few youtube videos and updates to the site which explain what is new. The only real expense in its marketing comes from the openmovies. The community as a whole is the main source of the marketing buzz. We eat up and over expose every little new feature blender gets. They don’t need the name to reflect big updates because regardless of the version number, we’ll make a ton of tutorials showing off the new things blender can do.
New users don’t care what the version number is. They just download the latest version, and play around with it. If they quit for a while, seeing a cool new tool in a video would prompt them to try blender again.
It has nothing to do with how marketable the name is. It is semantic versioning because it is versioning with meaning behind it. It is an industry standard which makes people’s lives easier.
Blender doesn’t need to do anything to follow the mainstream, but there are some things that would really help it, and while I don’t feel too strongly about this one, I wish it was done right from the start.
Yeah, if you ask me as well. 2.5 should have been version 3. And 2.8 should be Version 4. Both were major rewrites and major shifts.
The 2.* releases… I was not around when they started, but I came in at 2008. 2.49b That was 10 years ago.
They are after all just numbers, but if you ask me, this numbering system is real geeky. Look at Houdini, Cinema 4D, LightWave and Modo as good examples to compare as they do not release on a strictly yearly basis like Audodesk products. Even Renderman is a great example.
A version number should tell you something about what is happening. It should communicate clearly, this is a major release.
Going from 2.79x to 2.8 when it is a huge leap, is like looking at a room full of mathematicians, laboring over string theory and trying to calculate a precise factor to plug into a 2 meter long equation that calculates the average growth of black hole in space against the time space continuum of a nano-molecular distortion net, filtered through a fractured vortex.
If software version is not marketing thingy, then it is a technical. Right? But now the version markup doesn’t reflect the techical side, as smilebags just showed as. The dots do not line up in any way. then why not just use plain simple numbers, eg. 279 and the next would be 280. If numbers are too easy, then there could be names, like android uses. Although google has also version numbering, which makes technical sense.
I’m curious, as there is a nagging part stuck in my head. Wasn’t this question already answered by Ton himself?
I’ll have to do some searching.
Still I agree with that major/minior par and it would be cool if they did indeed go for 3 or so. But I have a feeling Ton simply doesn’t care about versions, let alone making money (as per his last interview that is) rather making best software he can to allow us, the artists, do something cool.
I fail to see how that numbering system would make anyone’s life easier. Did any addon developers need to see a 3.0 to know that the next version will break scripts? No, they didn’t. The foundation informed them that the next version will break compatibility.
As for a regular user who wants to check blender out, they will just download whatever the latest version is if they are interested. They don’t need to know this version is a huge improvement over the last one, or at least that never motivated me to download anything. If we are talking about someone who used to use blender, then suddenly seeing a 3 isn’t going to tip the scale towards them giving it another try. It will be specific new features they hear about from somewhere like a youtube video.
With all that said, I’m not really opposed to blender switching to a more conventional versioning system, I just don’t see the current one as being a drawback.
Yeah, you probably hit the nail on the head here. He probably just didn’t care too much about the version number. I heard bug fix releases used to just be regular version numbers instead of letter releases (a version with a letter at the end like 2.79b).
The main thing wrong with Blenders version numbers is that it begs a question. That is what is wrong with it. That it then has to be explained no matter who answers it or how well answered it is. Its just going geek over something that does not have to be geeky. Like blender is in a forever state of being in Beta. Which actually it feels like at times. But beta software usually gets endless versions until it reaches a release. Then major releases and updates.
This is really like Blender’s “My amp goes up to 11.”
Not sure which part of that bit that is funnier. The fact that it goes up to 11 or the explanation.
I do agree that Blender’s versioning could use a rework from the old FOSS style system that is also still in use by the GIMP team.
In a way, the big 2.5 rework could’ve bumped Blender up to version 3 and this latest 2.8 rework bumping it to version 4. The tricky bit though is how to smoothly transition to a new system without leaving a major discrepancy in what should be a basic function in software development.
From a technical stand point I like the versioning as is, blender 3.0 is still in the works in other words, major versions are extremely different from one another, a versioning pace that can be utilized for decades.
It has been 10 years since 2.49. Blender could be at 4. It is just a number. And it does not have to have any deep meaning.
Blender was completely new at 2.5 and will be completely new at 2.8. Most other software has reached double digits in this time or switched over to year designations.
At this pace most of us will not even be around by the time it reaches a double digit.
Firefox and Chrome are perfect examples of taking version numbers too far in the other direction (as opposed to Blender still being in 2.xx 16 years and 2 major overhauls later).
That said, this is not something that the BF should be spending a lot of time over as there are many genuine weaknesses in Blender that still need work, even though 2.8 is already on top of many.