Because on most systems, KiCad 7.0 and KiCad 8.0 can be run side by side at the same time, but KiCad 7.0.9 and 7.0.10 can’t. It is useful to see at a glance which of the multiple installations you opened.
Nice, this is a good reason that half (actually 2/3) of the SemVer is useful. We seem to agree that having the version explicitly displayed is a good thing to have.
Now the remainder (1/3) of the SemVer is also useful for all other users too, especially the ones that contribute to KiCad somehow. We are always seeking the latest version, no matter if it is in the development or stable version.
Why can’t we have the entire SemVer displayed, instead? Most of the time is not more than 3 characters.
Otherwise, you should get a better operating system if it isn’t notifying you of what packages it’s arbitrarily updating because I know that’s where this is coming.
Quite often beginners do not post the version info on this forum with the full 3 numbers and two dots in between, and that is sometimes a bit troublesome while trying to help them.
On some systems, updates can also be set to automatic, and this would mean that also KiCad can get updated without further user intervention, and in both such cases it may be useful if the version with the 2nd dit and third number is in the title bar.
But overall it’s a very small and insignificant issue.
Our sales and marketing team thought it looked better.
This means there is neither a logical nor a technical reason behind the choice. Also, I believe the aesthetic of something broken in 2/3 is not pleasing at all. Allowing marketing (and especially sales) to control this is kind of nonsense, as they could do a better job where they are indeed required.
It’s not broken, it’s visually pleasing to the majority of the user base. None of our competitors also insert their full version string into the header.
Doing so would just make us look like some shitty open source software.
I have just been through all the application I have and the VAST majority put the filename in the title bar because they are opening a file. Then webbrowsers put the page title in the titlebar.
Kicad literally is the EXCEPTION in displaying any form of version information (inkscape does but only for the initial launch screen then filename for main application) so why exactly the OP wants to go even further is beyond me but they are welcome to maintain a local patchset and compile their own version.
Personally having the project name in the titlebar is infinitely more useful than a full version string…
I’d have thought most would know the program and version they download and use. If not, and if opening Help > About is too difficult, the full version always shows in the supplied Schematic Title Box.
I guess I have often had the same desire as the OP.
If the main point is to just point out the major version (6, 7, 8…) Seems odd that we don’t just list it as KiCad 7, no?
Having KiCad 7.0 seems it would tell the novice that this is 7.0 not 7.0.8- IMHO. I know this isn’t the biggest issue to tackle, but it seems goofy as it is.
Kicad 7.0 is kind of ugly (dumb) but it helps someone who has the nightlies, the dev version (7.99), is easy to identify, and since they both can be installed concurrently on the same machine this is a must.
Now, Kicad 7.0.10 would be not as ugly as the current alternative, and it is also informative for everyone who wants to have access to the version quickly. Also, since Kicad is a CAD tool, every bit of the version number matters.
