Shoutbox

Version Numbers - Printable Version

-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Skype & Technology (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Tech Talk (/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+----- Thread: Version Numbers (/showthread.php?tid=75237)

RE: RE: RE: [release] Status Icon by CookieRevised on 06-10-2007 at 12:56 AM

===========================================
Version Number talk starts here
This is not a double post...
This post was edited and reported for a split/merge to its own thread as it might interest others and it got a bit off topic in this thread
This note will be deleted as the post is merged.
===========================================


This is a self-split from this post.

It started a discussion about how version numbers are formatted and interpreted.

This might interest other people (and was getting really off-topic in that original thread)...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: In the version tag of scriptinfo.xml you state that this latest version is 1.10, yet in the comments in the source you state 1.1...

1.1 is not the same as 1.10...

Version numbers aren't decimal numbers as a whole, but a list of individual numbers. The point is not a decimal point but must be seen as a delimiter, a seperation between individual numbers. Thus 1.10 = version 1, build 10 (not build 1)

1.01 is the same as 1.1...

PS: interesting read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning


;)


RE: [release] Status Icon by Volv on 06-10-2007 at 05:41 AM

quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Version numbers aren't decimal numbers as a whole, but a list of individual numbers. The point is not a decimal point but must be seen as a delimiter, a seperation between individual numbers. Thus 1.10 = version 1, build 10 (not build 1)
He doesn't really have to follow convention, if he wants 1.1 to be the same as 1.10 then so be it - it may be a bit out of the norm but there's nothing wrong with it. Maybe he's incorporating the revision number into the build number as opposed to separating them with another period :p
RE: [release] Status Icon by CookieRevised on 06-10-2007 at 01:56 PM

Everybody follows that convention, from big commercial companies to small open-source stuff. Quite frankly, those who don't follow it are the ones who don't know how version numbers work.

Of course it isn't wrong, as in getting shot for it... :p But it is making things much more confusing for almost all people. And, like what happened in the past more than once already with scripts and plugins, people wont know what the latest version is because of this. That is if the next version would be named 1.2 again instead of 1.20....

Even the sole fact that for "1.1" you say "version one point one", and for "1.10" you say "one point ten" not "one point one".

So with the convention you described you still should call it 1.20 and not 1.2, just to avoid mistakes. Because with the convention you descibred it would be the same anyways. And although with the normal convention it isn't the same, it will avoid confusion as to what version is a follow up to the other.

So if the next version is called 1.20, the convention you described could still apply, if that is what he want to do... But it will also avoid confusion to those who (logically) assume the normal convention is used. If the next version is called 1.2 it will cause many people to not knowing what is what.

Anyways, He can jump from version 1.0 to version 12.345 for all I care, but whatever convention you use, you need to be consistant. Which is my main point actually... The string "1.10" is not the same string as "1.1" and in the comments it is stated this is "1.1" and when you import the script and in the script list it is stated as "1.10".... Both numbers must be the same at the least.


RE: [release] Status Icon by Volv on 06-10-2007 at 02:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Even te sole fact that for "1.1" you say "version one point one", and for "1.10" you say "one point ten" not "one point one".
Actually, in English numbers after a decimal point are pronounced by their digits as they dont represent the 'tens' (10^1) or 'hundreds' (10^2). So "1.10" is pronounced "one point one zero" (or "one point one o").
RE: [release] Status Icon by CookieRevised on 06-10-2007 at 02:29 PM

Version numbers are not decimal numbers as a whole! The point is not a decimal point, it is a delimiter and can be "-" for example. This hasn't got anything todo with what how you read out decimal numbers in a specific language, as it is not a decimal number to begin with. Each part of the version number is a number on its own.

the version 1.10 indicates two numbers, not one number. It consists of the numbers "one" and "ten", not "one" and "one zero".


RE: [release] Status Icon by Volv on 06-10-2007 at 02:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Version numbers are not decimal numbers as a whole! The point is not a decimal point, it is a delimiter and can be "-" for example. This hasn't got anything todo with what how you read out decimal numbers in a specific language, as it is not a decimal number to begin with. Each part of the version number is a number on its own.
Okay, okay, point taken :p (Hence why there tends to be a second decimal point between build and revisions)
Either way, I do agree with you on the topic and think that it should at least be consistent if a different method of version numbering is going to be used.