On 4/13/07, Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That brings up a point I've been discussing elsewhere. In your mind
> (and others on the list, natch), does 0.9 imply "almost ready" or
> "just before 1.0 is released"?
.9 means 90%, nine-tenths, almost done (only 90% left to go!)
> Or does it mean that "this is the
> ninth point release, and there could be dozens or hundreds more such
> point releases before we even *think* about a 1.0 release" - e.g:
> 0.9, 0.10, 0.11, ... 0.232, 0.233...
Nope. In that case it should be version 0.09 or 0.009.
Not that anyone knows how hard it is going to be when they start out.
In that case, most of us would have never tried in the first place.
You can always continue to increment by one-tenth of whatever the
previous increment was...
0.9, 0.9.1, 0.9.1.1, 0.9.1.2, 0.9.1.2.1,... but that's not very
satisfactory, either.
Build numbers have the advantage of non-databearing primary keys: no
data included, self-incremental, sequential, never ending (up to 2^31
or so...), but lack information, by definition.
Versions as ANSI dates let you judge freshness ("best if served
by...") if the version number is 20020613, then you have an idea
you're working with abandon-ware. And you're good until Y10k.
The challenge is that the purpose of version numbers is overloaded:
make wants to ensure you have the requisite supported version, you
want to communicate the "doneness" of the product.
My preference: many vendors have chosen to spit the version number
like an IP address and have different parts of it communicate
different information: Major version is marketing, minor version is
bug-fix level, build number is sequential or date and fix number is in
case the first compile of the day doesn't work but you made the
mistake of letting it out:
Major.Minor.Build.Fix
So, 0.9.20070413.0 is beta (Zero), 90% done (only allowed numbers left
are 91, 92, ...99) , built today, first release today.
--
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
