Let's talk version numbers

[yorik]

Toponaming should be the development goal and then we have a FreeCAD 1.0.

Yes, exactly.

what else would be needed to declare that in your opinion?

Basically that we don't have toponaming issues anymore (or, let's say, they are very rare and very corner cases, as I expect @realthunder 's algorithm might still fail in some complex cases). That should be rather easy to test I guess, maybe we could build a set of test files that DO give toponaming problems now?

[yorik]

maybe we could build a set of test files that DO give toponaming problems now?

I have split the replies to this here: https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=69644 let's add test files there to not pollute this thread!

[adrianinsaval]

Basically that we don't have toponaming issues anymore (or, let's say, they are very rare and very corner cases, as I expect @realthunder 's algorithm might still fail in some complex cases).

I feel like that is too ambitious (and nearing unachievable) and doesn't really help move forward, still it would be nice if other workbenches than those realthunder implemented made the effort to use the toponaming algorithm during this cycle, like techdraw which greatly suffers from it.

Anyways, if a discussion about whether or not to release as 1.0 should be made I would prefer to move that to another thread too, here what I really want to achieve is a consistent system for the version numbers be it 0.* or 1.*

[user1234]

At the moment the development/toponaming https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/comm ... toponaming compiles on Debian 11 fine.

@Kunda1: is there a thread for test suggestions? I do not have found one.

Greetings
user1234

[adrianinsaval]

yorik posted one above but I think there was some prior discussion about that before too.