Numbering Software Versions

[sanjulian 0]

Hi guys!Do someone can explain me how sucessives versions of a script are numbered?, that is, v.1.0 - 1.0?

[iGuest 3]

Hi guys!

Do someone can explain me how sucessives versions of a script are numbered?, that is, v.1.0 - 1.0?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh. Well, a hard question. Version number namings depends upon the programmers I think. But at the best of my knowledge version changes are something like this:

 

1. Higher numbers indicates later versions.

2. A double-decimal system is used so that you can tell the difference between major and minor changes.

3. When the main number changes, such as v1.0 to v2.0, that indicates a major change, with totally new approaches to the system environment that often older hardware or OS can't handle it. Usually that's not the case, unless it's a huge shift like v1.0 - v5.0, then older hardware might not work.

4. A change on the first decimal place such as v1.0 to v1.1 usually means some significant component was changed or added, but you don't need to change the hardware or your OS.

5. There are also what we call Alpha and Beta version, Preview Release, Release Candidate, etc.. The main number is always zero on alpha and beta version like v0.98

 

The above applies generally, not to all softwares. I hope this answered your question.

[iGuest 3]

Hi guys!

Do someone can explain me how sucessives versions of a script are numbered?, that is, v.1.0 - 1.0?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey sanjulian,

 

jtakano is correct on most parts. The Version Numbering Spec is dependant on the Software Developer's scheme although most are quite similar to others, but again it's what procedural standards documentation they follow..

 

Most numbering schemes are like version Major.Minor.BugFix, e.g. version 3.2.1 which means 3 major releases, since this release 3 minor updates and 2 bugfixes.

 

Major changes usually involves a complete rewrite, changes in design/language and support for newest OS if it's OS dependant, can also result in incompatibilities with older versions. It always starts at version 1.

 

Minor updates could include additional features that require changes in documentation or more support, and just things that were left over/out. It starts at 0 (zero)

 

BugFixes usually for security reasons, stability or compatibility. It should not require changes to documentation or external API's and this number starts at 0 (zero)

 

Alpha is an early stage release, before the first Major release, can be considered unstable and still undergoing major testing.

 

Beta is the feedback stage, it's like the stage for previewing and testing it, an evaluation stage, before being made a Major release.

 

Release Candidate is usually one that is being considered for distribution, it's being tested in the production environment and is considered a stable form because of the Beta testing.

 

Then Final Release which usually is a Major release or stable release suitable for production environments.

 

Well that's it from what I've known about the version numbering, after all this, you get to the Obsolete stage, when the software is no longer supported, can also be considered abandonware, but do be warned, companies with the rights of the software still take the law unto themselves if needed.

 

 

Cheers, MC

[qwijibow 0]

This is the way i understand it....any version number below version 1.0 is an unfinished project....for example firefox 0.9, great, but the creators still want to do more work before they announce it as "finished"after that, its generally uncreace the first number for Major changes... the first number after the decimal for minor changes.. and yet anouther decimal and number for minor bug fixes and tweaks...for example version 2.4.26 might have the same functionality of 2.4.25 but with a bug fix, or performance tweak.there are also other versioning than some people use... for example 1.0-rc1 1.0-rc2 1.0-rc3 where RC stands for release candidate.... which is a bit like a Beta releace.and the Linux Kenrnel untill very recently (and a few other projects) used to use odd and even numbers to indicate stable or testing releases,,, for example..Stable Release ||| Testing Release2.2.X ||| 2.1.X2.4.X ||| 2.3.X2.6.X ||| 2.5.Xbut itn the end its pretty much up to you...The latest stable releace of Java is 1.4.. however the next version is going to be version 5.0no reas reason..and i have no idea why they do this.if i had to guess, id say its because Java vresion 5 sounds better than Java version 2 ?who knows.... whatever it is its confusing !

[daniel151405241469 0]

some people skip version numbers on purpose, eg. a while ago, microsoft skipped from version 2.0 of Word to version 6.0, just to catch up with the version numbers of WordPerfect ("If WordPerfect has a higher version number then it sounds better" or so they say)another example is with WinAMP from version 3 to version 5 (skipping 4). They did this because the new version has the best features of winamp 2 and 3 (2+3=5)the versioning i use for my software is major.minor/release, eg. original release: version 1.0bugfixes: 1.01, 1.02, 1.03minor new features: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4bugfixes: 1.41, 1.42major recode: 2.0get it?

[sanjulian 0]

Thanks guys, very much. I appreciate the quality of your answers. Now I can understand some of those nomenclatures and, why not?, apply it to some mambo resources wich I'm doing.

[helix1405241470 0]

I see no one discussed four numbers? ie. 1.1.1.1. This is what we use at work here but I couldn't tell you what all the numbers are for. The first one is the version of the product and the last one is for the build of the product. I assume the other numbers are for QA and other stuff.

[lvalle 0]

Thanks guys, very much. I appreciate the quality of your answers. Now I can understand some of those nomenclatures and, why not?, apply it to some mambo resources wich I'm doing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want to apply this, you can use a CVS (concurrent versioning system) server.

http://ww1.csvpharmashoponline.com/ (linux)

http://www.march-hare.com/cvspro/ (win)

 

lorenzo

[saxsux 0]

AOL (yes I know they're terrible) always number thier versions X.0. Version 7.0 was almost exactly the same as 6.0, just with a different colour scheme, which was pretty stupid. Instead of releasing version X.1 or whatever, they simply skip on to another version. And, when it comes to minor fixes, they change your "version numer" or something like that. Its this god know how long number that you have to be a minor expert to find out what it is.

[vizskywalker 0]

I use two different systems, one before release and one after release.Before release I use a four number system A.B.C.D where A is the major version, B is the number of days I have actually worked on it, C is the number of times I have sat down and worked on it (which is at least as large as B, but it may be larger if I work on it, go see a movie then work on it some more), and D is the build number.After release I use a three number system X.Y.Z where X is the release number, Y is the update number (new features not worthy of a new version) and Z is the patch number.~Viz