Version numbers?

category: general [glöplog]
[off topic] lol

I had a sudden whim to ask a nonsensical question. Is there a proper way to give applications/whatever runs/warez a version number? v.23 of course is beta... v1.0 first build(?)....

But what about V 3.152? Do you give it those last 3 decimal points to say, "We're working on it. Some critcal bug got fixed. But the rest of the project is shit"? orrr...?

What's the math behind version numbers?
*rolls eyes*
added on the 2005-03-05 09:12:26 by psenough psenough
our convention at work is:

Version x.y

Where major changes, such as new GUI or new features, are reflected in x changes and minor changes, such as bug fixes, are indicated by changes in y.

So if you have 152 bugfixes for version 2 then the version is 2.152, though at some point the projectmanager or salesstaff will suggest upgrading the version number rather than telling the world that our software suck so much we had to make 152 patches for one single version :)
That's an interesting question. How about some proggies with x.y.z versions?
added on the 2005-03-05 09:56:47 by Optimonk Optimonk
Either you name your application to the current year or next year, or next next year, eg:

MOJS 2010

or, you can attach your latest trademark, like this:
added on the 2005-03-05 10:05:17 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
i usually start with v0.1b and after that i stop developing the damn tool.
added on the 2005-03-05 11:00:44 by skrebbel skrebbel
Most companies have commercial motives for upgrading version numbers. For example an x.y.z. version number scheme could use the z for bugfixes, the y for bigger updates which can still freely be obtained by existing customers and the x for major new versions of the software for which even existing customers have to pay again.

added on the 2005-03-05 11:12:55 by sparcus sparcus
I think version-numbering is a highly subjective thing :) It all depends on how the developer decides the "advance" of updates I guess.
I think a somewhat fair way is to take the time elapsed between the two releases and make the version number increment rational to that ;)
added on the 2005-03-07 10:41:04 by Gargaj Gargaj
*cue stupid Doom 1.666 joke*
added on the 2005-03-07 10:55:47 by Shifter Shifter
Microsoft Word 2.0 was the first version of MS Word. It's 2.0 because 1.0 implies a new and unstable product. At least the marketing guys think so. Thx to all the fricklers out there who use the 0.x or 0.x.y as initial versions, they make 1.0 looking like the first stable and long awaited version (again). ;)
the version number of TeX converges to pi from below. for example i use version 3.14159
added on the 2005-03-08 14:57:06 by blala blala
and MS Word 3 became Word 6, coz Wordperfect had very high version numbers already and they wanted to keep up :P
The DOS Word had several inbetween versions iirc; it was Word for Windows that jumped from 2.0 to 6.0 :)

Anyway, we (fr/.theprodukkt) use x.y convention, with x the major version and y incremented every time we release an executable.
added on the 2005-03-08 16:54:44 by ryg ryg
most old dos/windows apps used x.yz (x major, y minor, z revision), like windows 3.1 & 3.11. nowadays most portable apps stick with the unix style, x.y.z. or you can be arrogant like nvidia detonator and use xy.z. what are they up to now, 75 or 76?

if you're building your own app with no deadline, i recommend infinitely approaching but never reaching 1.0. so, 0.8, 0.9, 0.9.9, etc. that way whenever anyone bitches you can say it's still in beta and that it will be fixed in the final release version (which of course you will die before completing).
added on the 2005-03-08 17:36:16 by phoenix phoenix
I use the traditional scene system:

'prerelease','do not spread','stolen','preview','party version','final','fuckings'
Fascinating that version numbers can translate into sales.
pg: actually, it's not fascinating.. at all.

truck: more updated version would be 'party version'.. and once in a while, 'final version', 'final version bugfixed', 'final version 2.0 which even supports your hardware', etc.
added on the 2005-03-08 21:09:14 by phoenix phoenix
and what about a "beta final version" ?
added on the 2005-03-08 23:11:39 by rmeht rmeht
rmeht: thats kkrieger ;)
added on the 2005-03-08 23:13:50 by psenough psenough
ah, right. kkrieger :)
added on the 2005-03-08 23:17:31 by rmeht rmeht
pg: actually, it's not fascinating.. at all.

Sorry, I'm easily amused when it comes to marketing. Kind of a side interest of mine.
makes me happy!
added on the 2005-03-09 09:36:37 by skrebbel skrebbel
V 3.152 means:
v3 = ok, good product, some news since the v1
v3.1 = minor problems, corrected in a hurry after the commercial release
v3.152 = 52 bugs has been found in this fucking crappy v3 !
it's like this bad windows os wich have patchs every weeks on windows update...
actually one of the reasons for doing "righthand" version numbers like is that if your filenaming convention is myapp_1.0.2.3.zip then you get sorted by version, as opposed to 1,10,11,12,2,3,... :)
added on the 2005-03-09 15:13:57 by Gargaj Gargaj
hey that's my convention for filing everything.


however, met this great chick Laura and the next thing was


But then Karen and I had a talk which resulted in..