What a confusing headline.
TIL the version numbering scheme changed. LibreOffice 24 is the next major version after LibreOffice 7.
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.
Technically, this numbering scheme conforms with semantic versioning where
1.9.0 -> 1.10.0 -> 1.11.0
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.)
I don’t think it is based on the release month
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.
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
Upvoting not because you agreed with me but because of the relief of discovering my flagrantly innocuous frustration might have a kernel of justification.
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
Could I get a whole saucy magnitude scale from you?
Let’s see.
Bearnaise
Bechamel
Apple
Pesto
Ketchup
Sweet BBQ
Chimichurri
Gravy
Panang
Romesco
Tabasco
Mustard BBQ
Vinegar BBQ
Mustard
Mole
GarumThe scale admittedly ramps up exponentially at the end there.
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).
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.
From a brief skim, it looks like 7.6 is their LTS, and 24.2 is stable?
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
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.
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.
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’
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
LOL yep. I’m deleting the parent.
