Versioning, Sodium LTS and minor version breakage about fabulously-optimized

[TheBossMagnus]

Some IMO points:

In both 1.20.1 and 1.20.2, the breaking changes of Sodium would definitely break other mods that users like to add.

One thing that (could) be done is to update only non-breaking changes (only fixes or minor features), as LTS works in Linux. This would reduce the effort needed but it's a compromise and goes against the latest is the greatest

What if 1.21.0 will never become stable but instead will be superseded by a later version?

I don't se the issue here

I've considered releasing FO 5.8.0 without CIT Resewn, because it has not updated yet.

I think the issue is not in the versioning itself, but in the criteria used to define the stability (alpha/beta/release). In Modding sometimes happens that it's not clear if a mod will get updated and when. Another case of this is been colormatic, and it has been skipped. I propose to define the status by thinking about the stability itself. If a not crucial (like sodium, iris -a list might need to be done-) mod is missing, it shouldn't be blocking the switch from beta to release. Obv the absence of features shall be mentioned in the changelog, always. Surely a more subjective solution, but also more truthful.

Any backports require my time and energy

That's completely on your own, but i believe a significant amount of players (roughly 58% rn aren't using 1.20.4 nor 1.20.2

In conclusion/TLDR:

• The versioning probably needs to be changed, how needs to be defined
• I think the alpha/beta/release labeling needs to be revised
• Backports would be good, needed to check firstly feasibility (How sodium LTS will go and the effort-result balance) and secondly the way it will work
• I believe that having some public docs to describe how all of these internal changes will work is needed. For the development to be coherent and for the users to understand how and why things are done
• Maybe involving the community has been done with the vote for the removal of some mod. Maybe do not relay too much on numerical votes and more on the discussion itself.

[Madis0]

Good points, thank you.

One thing that (could) be done is to update only non-breaking changes (only fixes or minor features), as LTS works in Linux. This would reduce the effort needed but it's a compromise and goes against the latest is the greatest

True, but if the changes are too minor (like 3 mods with minor changes), then the effort doesn't necessarily justify the update for me or the players.

What if 1.21.0 will never become stable but instead will be superseded by a later version?
I don't se the issue here

The issue I meant is that like when FO "skips" (or actually skips) over a major version for seemingly no reason. Not really a user-facing issue I guess, just weird to look at.

I think the issue is not in the versioning itself, but in the criteria used to define the stability (alpha/beta/release). In Modding sometimes happens that it's not clear if a mod will get updated and when. Another case of this is been colormatic, and it has been skipped. I propose to define the status by thinking about the stability itself. If a not crucial (like sodium, iris -a list might need to be done-) mod is missing, it shouldn't be blocking the switch from beta to release. Obv the absence of features shall be mentioned in the changelog, always. Surely a more subjective solution, but also more truthful.

The thing is that Colormatic:

• was always less visible to users than connected textures and custom items
• was knowingly hard to forward-port after attempts from several devs - in contrast to CIT Resewn, which has already been ported by two

That said, if the update won't happen soon, then I'll likely do it anyway.

That's completely on your own, but i believe a significant amount of players (roughly 58% rn aren't using 1.20.4 nor 1.20.1

I see 46.8% of users using 1.20.4 in the "Minecraft Version" graph, so I'm not sure what you were referring to.

Edit: lol, I completely missed your point and the number is actually 34.6% that do not use either. 77.5% of users do use 1.20.x, with 1.20.4 being the most popular by now.

Maybe involving the community has been done with the vote for the removal of some mod. Maybe do not relay too much on numerical votes and more on the discussion itself.

Yeah, I usually prefer discussion over votes. Although for some mods a complete removal is not even necessary, I could just remove it now and readd later (like how it has happened with EBE many times) - it's more of a matter of meeting expectations and keeping the UX similar across stable versions.

[osfanbuff63]

What if 1.21.0 will never become stable but instead will be superseded by a later version?

I don't se the issue here

The issue I meant is that like when FO "skips" (or actually skips) over a major version for seemingly no reason. Not really a user-facing issue I guess, just weird to look at.

IMO, skipping versions when it's a change in the first few alpha versions for a quick path (like with 1.20, 1.20.3, etc) shouldn't be needed.