Versioning for Ruth and Roth

[seriesumei]

We have an interesting situation in the name of this project containing what looks like a version string: Ruth 2.0. Historically the releases have been labelled RC1, etc, which implies not having an actual release, which is probably accurate, they were more like checkpoints really.

I am proposing here a naming convention for release versions that I hope is not too different from what folks are used to seeing but gets specific and hopefully prevents some confusion from happening.

• The project name is colloquially Ruth 2.0, with Roth 2.0 coming later. This Github project name fortunately does not have the numbers in it but there is some value in keeping the name, so let's do that (unless there are strong feelings here I have not heard about yet). We should try to not use the words version or release in connection with the 2.0 in the project name.

• Ruth: We have generally agreed that the current work on Ruth is going to be called 4-something. Previously there were RC2 and RC3 so 4 is natural to follow. I propose to stop using the letters 'RC' since that means Release Candidate to most people and we are really talking about a release or version identifier. I would suggest instead talking about 'release 4' or 'version 4' with my personal preference for using 'version' because of the tendency to abbreviate it as 'v4'. Using 'r4' or 'R4' looks a lot like 'RC4', although that may actually be a benefit. Thoughts?

• Roth: Basically the same discussion as above, we should use the same process, only the current work is for v2. This should be the only time we will have Roth 2.0 v2 or something that looks redundant.

• Internal references: For things like file names, git tags or branch names I propose that we simply leave out the '2.0' everywhere. A tag for the next Roth release might look like 'Roth-v2'.

I am interested to hear what folks think. I am thinking about this from a software developers point of view, does it make sense to others too? If not, how can it be improved?

[aiaustin]

I think all these suggestions are good. I also agree that calling it "version n" is preferable for the reason you give. I suggest when it settles down that a version of the text of the issue, removing the questions when settled, is added to the repository as a top level file called something like "version-Info.txt".

[Deledrius]

Seems reasonable to me!

[AdaRadius]

As long as you can explain it to the artists who are not programmers :)
(I don't understand the difference between a version and a release)

[LeonaMorro]

If we look on the SL marketplace for "Ruth" we find something like:

1. LBD BOM Ruth 2.0 Mesh Body
2. PROJECT Ruth 2.0 (Release Candidate 1)v2
3. ruth upgrades - rc3 hands, feets, nails - 2
4. Mesh Ruth 2.0 Bento Body Head Hands Feets Appliers Full Perm (* New updated Ruth 2020 *)
5. RuthTooRC3 Bakes On Mesh Female Body Version RC3
6. (HOS) Ruth 2.0 FULL PERM Mesh Female Avatar Version 1.0
7. Ruth 2020 Bento Avatar 24 Skins HUD Alpha HUD
8. Ruth 2020 Fingernails Toenails Bento Hands Feets RC3
   ...

1,4,6) I don't know which version this could be
2) I guess this could be the RC1 version. I also guess the shop owner has made 2 different uploads (v2) of it.
3,7,8) Is this for "Ruth 2.0"?
5) From the Produkt image: Is derived from Ruth 2.0 RC#3 (well this is allmost the correct name and version string)

I have found not even one product with a name containing the string "Ruth 2.0" and a proper version string like "RC3" (but I have to confess that I didn't search for it longer then 20 minutes)

RC, Release Candidate:
As we see above, Ruth 2.0 is already distributed to the "end-user" even if the versions string "RC" says it isn't ready for this step. It seems that many people are thinking that Ruth 2.0 is ready to be released. Of course there are parts that could be refined but thats also the case for almost every other Software product that is already released. So I would support @seriesumei suggestion to drop "RC" and simply use a version number.

My suggestion is to drop the "2.0" string as part of the name completly (the repository name also doesn't contain it), so the name becomes "Ruth" and "Roth". We then could use a proper version string for example "2.4" for the next (defacto) release so if you write "name" + "version" it becomes "Ruth 2.4" (or "Ruth v2.4" if we want that "v"). This also means that there are no differences between internal and external references.

[aiaustin]

Leona.. we really can't just call the female avatar "Ruth" as Ruth is the long standing name for the default Second Life and OpenSim classic avatar. That was why the original updated avatar project was named "Ruth 2.0". We need to think of that as a project name rather than a version.

I do agree that confusion reigns where people have uploaded and made their own versions... which to be clear was the original aim of the project founders. But most do make it clear whether they are based on Ruth 2.0 RC#1, Ruth 2.0 RC#2 or Ruth 2.0 RC#3 or Roth 2.0 RC#1, which are the only versions of Ruth that are current based for the builds, boxes or mods.

I also think that Serie and the team should call things "version n" from now on... and consider the previous RC#n as Ruth 2.0 version n or Roth 2.0 version n.

[LeonaMorro]

Well, you know for example the famous Microsoft Word? The first version arrived ~1985 it is called Microsoft Word till today. You can be sure that current version has nothing to do with the first version but nevertheless it is called "Word". So why shouldn't we stick to the name "Ruth" as a synonym for a female standard avatar? The versions number should make the differnce very clear. In fact that is exacly what version numbers are made for?

[seriesumei]

The '2.0' in 'Ruth 2.0' is not a version, although it looks like one, and hence the confusion. It is marketing-speak not unlike the old 'Web 2.0' phrase. Sean made the obvious change for his incarnation (RuthToo) that keeps the spirit of the name and yet has its own identity. If we make a change I believe it needs to be like that. I agree with Austin that we can/should not just drop the '2.0'.

One possibility is to make the '2.0' visibly more part of the name, such as 'Ruth-2.0' or 'Ruth2', ie eliminate the space so it looks more like a single name. that would leave us with 'Ruth-2.0 v2.4' or 'Ruth2 v2.4'. The latter looks better to me but is not quite as obvious that it is the same as 'Ruth 2.0'.

Ada: I often interpret 'release' to refer to integrated things that are tested and packaged as a unit, where 'version' is the tracking for the component things. This is far from standard and the two are often used interchangeably by many people (including me in what I proposed above! grrr). I don't think the distinction here is as important as it might be in some projects.

[LeonaMorro]

IMHO: 'Ruth2' is also a good suggestion to prevent confusion between the name and the version.

[aiaustin]

I don't think we should add 2.x into the version number Serie. I think it should be Ruth 2.0 v4. We should consider the earlier RCn as each being the equivalent of vn. So Ruth 2.0 RC#3 is also Ruth 2.0 v3.

More input on whether to rename Ruth 2.0 as Ruth2 is needed... I personally think its too late to do that. Seeing this as the equivalent of "Web 2.0" as Serie noted is best I think.

[seriesumei]

I am happy to go with 'Ruth 2.0 v4', it is overall simpler to just count rather than attempting to apply meaning to the x.y.z versioning formats.

[AdaRadius]

When we were working on earlier versions of Ruth, we had more than one person working in the Blender files - we need labeling to keep track of them as well. When it was working well, it was version numbers for various files on UV mapping, for example, plus the artist's name, maybe another set of version numbers when a different set of artists (with some overlap) was working on vertex weighting. It wasn't all that well organized, but as various artists came and went and came back again, we could usually find what we needed.

It looks to me that not all of the blend files nor all of the dae files ended up in this GitHub, and I don't know what happened to the missing ones. And Shin sent me some files outside of GitHub, asking me not to share them. I think all those Ruth and Roth Blender files are irrelevant now that we're moving into Blender 2.81 - essentially starting over, with Shin's topology more of a guideline than a final model.

Release Candidate number was for when Shin was ready to put a package together inworld - mesh, HUDs, textures, half a dozen or more people's efforts. What is industry standard for a project like this?

I'm open to any system that can take the human foibles into consideration, along with the marketing labels that we don't have much control over. It's never going to be perfect. :)

[ocsean]

LeonaMorro commented yesterday:

5. RuthTooRC3 Bakes On Mesh Female Body Version RC3

5. From the Produkt image: Is derived from Ruth 2.0 RC#3 (well this is allmost the correct name and version string)

Just a minor note. RC#3 is exactly the correct nomenclature per the original Shin Ingen release of Ruth 2.0 RC#3 as can be seen in this readme:
https://github.com/ingen-lab/Ruth/blob/master/Mesh/Avatar%20Ruth/Current%20Release/readme.txt
This is what I derived RuthToo RC3 from.

As far as what is used going forward, I'm okay with whatever you all decide. My only suggestion might be to adopt RuthTwo instead of Ruth2, but I'm even okay with keeping Ruth 2.0. I will, of course, continue to use my RuthToo name.

The virtual worlds where it is used tends not to care what's a version or release or release candidate number. Most just want to know which clothes will fit it and occasionally if this is the newest one.

~Sean Heavy

[LeonaMorro]

Just a minor note. RC#3 is exactly the correct nomenclature per the original Shin Ingen release of Ruth 2.0 RC#3 as can be seen in this readme:

My fault, sorry. Thank you for the info.

[aiaustin]

I have been thinking more... Serie suggested...

One possibility is to make the '2.0' visibly more part of the name, such as 'Ruth-2.0' or 'Ruth2', ie eliminate the space so it looks more like a single name. that would leave us with 'Ruth-2.0 v2.4' or 'Ruth2 v2.4'. The latter looks better to me but is not quite as obvious that it is the same as 'Ruth 2.0'.

I also now think we might be better off taking the opportunity of a fresh repository, fully sourced version and perhaps splitting the repositories to change the name to Ruth2 and Roth2.

I would suggest that the previous RC#N be vN not v2.nN - as that will be confusing too. Would we ever get v3.1 and if so would people start referring to that as Ruth3? Ruth2 would be the "project name" going forwards and for compatibility we would have Roth2 (even though there was no Roth 1 :-).

In world for parts we tend to start them with ru2_ and ro2_ so that's already in good shape, and we can soon alter read me and wiki titles, etc. RuthAndRoth as the git organization name, forum names, discord channel, for our in world (OSGrid) region, SL and OS groups names etc still works okay I assume. We might make the split repository Ruth2 and Roth2 and leave the old Ruth repository in place emptied except for a readme pointing with links to the split newly named repositories.

Hence, under this suggestion the next "versions" would be Ruth2 v4 and Roth2 v2.

[Deledrius]

I also now think we might be better off taking the opportunity of a fresh repository, fully sourced version and perhaps splitting the repositories to change the name to Ruth2 and Roth2.

I believe you can just rename the repository. No need to create a new one.

This seems overkill to me, however. There seems to be a struggle here against the original numbering scheme, where the RCs were leading to a release. Now that the RCs have sat for so long that people have been using them as releases, you want to just use them as previous versions. Just go ahead and do that: Ruth2 v3, and continue from there. I doubt it will confuse anyone. The rest is just going to be bikeshedding.