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.