[split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Messenger Plus! for Live Messenger (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: WLM Plus! General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+----- Thread: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 (/showthread.php?tid=80058)
RE: Willz Skinning Guide by Guido on 12-13-2007 at 07:32 PM
Thanks for the effort, Willz!! This will be of help to lots of people.
quote:Hmm check the home page of http://www.msgpluslive.net
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Its Messenger Plus! 4.50, not 4.5 ...
quote:(both are correct, because that part of the version number would act like a decimal. Putting the zero or not would be optional.)
![[Image: home2-downloadnow.gif]](http://www.msgpluslive.com/downloadsite/images/home2-downloadnow.gif)
RE: RE: Willz Skinning Guide by Willz on 12-13-2007 at 09:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Guido
Thanks for the effort, Willz!! This will be of help to lots of people.quote:Hmm check the home page of http://www.msgpluslive.net
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Its Messenger Plus! 4.50, not 4.5 ...quote:(both are correct, because that part of the version number would act like a decimal. Putting the zero or not would be optional.)
Well the sentence was:
"Messenger Plus! 4.50 has of course introduced a skinning feature which allows a skin to be made without the tedious process of hacking away files."
It was a better idea to put 4.50 since it was referring to the version where skinning first came out. Either way later on I don't mention versions and just refer to it as Plus! or Messenger Plus!.
Also when I post the next one ill migrate everything to the first post
RE: RE: Willz Skinning Guide by CookieRevised on 12-13-2007 at 09:55 PM
I knew somebody would say this 
quote:Which has already been reported...
Originally posted by Guido
Thanks for the effort, Willz!! This will be of help to lots of people.quote:Hmm check the home page of http://www.msgpluslive.net
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Its Messenger Plus! 4.50, not 4.5 ...
quote:Nope,
Originally posted by Guido
(both are correct, because that part of the version number would act like a decimal. Putting the zero or not would be optional.)
The "." in a version number is a delimiter, not a decimal point
Anyways, there are two ways to interpret a version number. Either interpret it as a whole number (which is very inlogical IMO). Which means 4,5 is 4,50 is 4,500 etc...
This is inlogical since version numbers exist of more than that! This way of interpreting a version number gets already flawed if you have a number like x . xxx . xxx
Because what is the decimal point? The first "." or the second "."? It is very inlogical.
Also because the individual parts of a version number have different names (major number, minor number, build number, revision number).
Also because the individual parts of a version number can contain text.
Also because they are treated as individual numbers in almost all development software.
------
The other method of interpreting version numbers is more logical. You read a version number as individual numbers, seperated by a dot ".". This means that 4.5 means major number = 4, minor number = 5
This also means that 4.5 is NOT 4.50...
And with this method there is no confusion as to what part of the version to treat as a decimal number with stuff like x . xxx . xxx
Because each number stands on its own...
------
Now take also in account that the version numbering of Plus! has always been like the second method.
Even in texts and tuts on the website 4.50 is used. It is also used as that in the about window.
------
These three things together means that it might be possible that someone reads 4.5 as being just that: 4,5. And they may wonder how 4.5 is a newer version than 4.40.... (since that is what is listed everywhere else, not 4,4)
If you state 4.50. There can not be any confusion at all, no matter how you read it. Those who use the first method to interpret the number would read it correct, and those who use the second method would read it correct also.
RE: Willz Skinning Guide by John Anderton on 12-14-2007 at 09:35 AM
quote:I am no technical genius on such things but if its 4.50, I wouldn't call it 4.5 because unlike math, I consider version numbers to have significant digits.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
This also means that 4.5 is NOT 4.50...
In math 4.5 = 4.50. In version numbers, I'd like to think "50" is another number so 4.50 != 4.5
I might be wrong though
I guess it all comes down to the creator and how he wants his softwares to be referred to as. Some how I highly doubt Patchy being too particular about the whole 4.5 and 4.50 interchangiability even though Plus! is his "daughter"Now can we get back to the skinning guide and a link to every doc in the first post please?
RE: Willz Skinning Guide by Guido on 12-14-2007 at 08:22 PM
quote:None is a decimal point, I didn't say that. I said:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
This is inlogical since version numbers exist of more than that! This way of interpreting a version number gets already flawed if you have a number like x . xxx . xxx
Because what is the decimal point? The first "." or the second "."? It is very inlogical.
quote:(in terms of the trailing zero being optional). I know 4.50.310 is not a decimal number, but 4.50 is rounded up at that nice "50" to be interpreted as 4 and a half, and this gets abbreviated on the official site's homepage as 4.5. 4.5 is not intended to be a version number, it's the name of a series of versions (and 4.50.310 is the first build of it)
Originally posted by Guido
that part of the version number would act like a decimal
I understood what you meant and know how version numbers are built (Including Plus!'s ones, there was a similar discussion here back in 3.5 IIRC). My point wasn't that you were wrong about suggesting using 4.50 (in fact it might be better in this context to avoid the confusions you mention), but just that you were wrong about 4.5 being incorrect/non-existant. Otherwise, you should consider it a bug in the website, not in Willz's skinning guide.
So, basically, don't run "4.5" through build numbering conventions, because it's not a build version number, it's the brand name of a series of releases. Still, if you make a poll, I believe most non-technical people will recognize 4.5 as an abbreviation of 4.50, and not as an early 4.00 series build -- major.minor.build version naming conventions aside.
(Sorry Willz for digressing so much
)
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by andrewdodd13 on 12-15-2007 at 12:43 AM
Yeah um, maybe I will explain this better tomorrow, but:
For MP!L it makes pseudo-sense that 4.50 and 4.5 are interchangeable, since there are unlikely to be 50 iterations of a minor release.
But for larger projects, it does make sense. Like for the Linux kernel. If we skip the major release (ie 2) and look at the third number after the decimal, you will see that .2 refers to the second release of the 2.x kernel, whereas .20 refers to the twentieth release. (Sometimes the linux kernel includes a fourth point which includes bug fixes and stuffs).
Firefox is a good example, there was Firefox 1.5 for a long time. I reckon as long as you don't qualify it as a number (ie, Firefox 1.005) then it looks fine as 1.5.
RE: RE: Willz Skinning Guide by CookieRevised on 12-15-2007 at 01:16 AM
quote:Isn't the brand name of the series 4.50 in that case?
Originally posted by Guido
(in terms of the trailing zero being optional). I know 4.50.310 is not a decimal number, but 4.50 is rounded up at that nice "50" to be interpreted as 4 and a half, and this gets abbreviated on the official site's homepage as 4.5. 4.5 is not intended to be a version number, it's the name of a series of versions (and 4.50.310 is the first build of it)
quote:It was never my intention to say it is bluntly wrong. I said (I think) it was inlogical in one way of looking at it as a version number. And that way is also the way I personally use...
Originally posted by Guido
I understood what you meant and know how version numbers are built (Including Plus!'s ones, there was a similar discussion here back in 3.5 IIRC). My point wasn't that you were wrong about suggesting using 4.50 (in fact it might be better in this context to avoid the confusions you mention), but just that you were wrong about 4.5 being incorrect/non-existant.
Neither 4.5 or 4.50 is wrong, if you look at it as just those two numbers.
But if you take in account how Plus! has always used the version numbers, the other text on the site, etc, then it would be wrong IMHO (even if you interpret it as the brand name of a series).
Series 4 isn't the same as series 40 either...(not the best argument, but blah)
quote:Which I actually did though (although I really don't consider this as a 'bug' bug). Willz probably got it from the 'bug' in the website, hence why I suggested it to him.
Otherwise, you should consider it a bug in the website, not in Willz's skinning guide.
quote:Ok, fair point now that you explained it that way, but people looking at the site might not know that. Hence why I still think it would be better to make it 4.50, so there isn't any confussion in any way you look at it.
So, basically, don't run "4.5" through build numbering conventions, because it's not a build version number, it's the brand name of a series of releases.
quote:ermm... I think you just contradicted yourself (if I understood you correctly at least)....
Originally posted by andrewdodd13
For MP!L it makes pseudo-sense that 4.50 and 4.5 are interchangeable, since there are unlikely to be 50 iterations of a minor release.
There indeed were 50 (well a bit less) iterations of Plus! (the number counts on, it doesn't (always) reset with major builds*), that's exactly what that number means.
And 4 is the number of how many major changes there has been. So, 4.5 means (in my way) only 5 iterations, which is serisouly fault.
* if it wouldn't count on then your logic of iterations is completely fault, because otherwise that would even mean that Plus! 4.23.276 = 4.3 for example. since 4.23 was the third/fourth in the 4 series.
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by markee on 12-15-2007 at 05:06 AM
With version numbering, it acts as cookie says, differently to decimals. You actually remove leading zeros rather than trailing zeros in version numbers.
quote:
Originally posted by wikipedia @ [url
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning]As[/url] an example of surprising version number ordering implementation behavior, in Debian, leading zeroes are ignored in chunks, so that 5.0005 and 5.5 are considered as equal, and 5.5<5.0006
Although this does not comply with numerical understandings and mathematics in general, it is very logical as you never know how many versions or builds a computer program is going to have.
Personally when I saw 4.5 on the main website I was a little disappointed.
Patchou uses a version similar system to WLM, however it is more like
code:This method might not comply with the norm, but it is very easy to understand AND is still a very easy to understand and logical format. You might say that only the major and minor version are needed, but Plus! has always been shown with it's revision number as well....
<major version> . <minor version> <revision> . <build>
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by ahmetgns on 12-15-2007 at 11:44 AM
By the way, I just checked the one of the first Plus! Live's version number, which is 4.01.0.240, you know "0" is not needed in the number "1" in fact like "01" as well , so it may be intended to have two digits all the time in that area, so 4.50 is more true imho (agreed with Cookie)
* ahmetgns checks the website for seeing what the current case is
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by Voldemort on 12-15-2007 at 05:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ahmetgns
you know "0" is not needed in the number "1" in fact like "01" as well
you can't magically dissapear zeros to the left?
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by Spunky on 12-15-2007 at 05:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ahmetgns
By the way, I just checked the one of the first Plus! Live's version number, which is 4.01.0.240, you know "0" is not needed in the number "1" in fact like "01" as well
* ahmetgns checks the website for seeing what the current case is
I've got to say that that kinda make sense, although it'd different due to the fact that a leading 0 may not be a significant figure. However, the 0 in 4.50 is also, not a significant figure. 4.50 suggests to me that it's the fourth major release, the 50th minor, meaning a lot of updates and bug fixes
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by riahc4 on 12-17-2007 at 02:13 AM
Um...
4.5 = 4.50 = 4.500000000000000000000000000000000000000
I dont understand what the big hassle is over this. 4.5 is 4.50, doesnt matter how you look at it. Of course seeing as Patchou has always used a 2 digit after the mayor build (3.00, 4.25, etc) the correct for Plus! right now would be 4.50
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by Voldemort on 12-17-2007 at 02:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by riahc4
Um...
4.5 = 4.50 = 4.500000000000000000000000000000000000000
I dont understand what the big hassle is over this. 4.5 is 4.50, doesnt matter how you look at it. Of course seeing as Patchou has always used a 2 digit after the mayor build (3.00, 4.25, etc) the correct for Plus! right now would be 4.50
it's different.. it is not a decimal number
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by riahc4 on 12-17-2007 at 02:43 AM
quote:I agree and different devs use different systems.
Originally posted by Voldemort
quote:
Originally posted by riahc4
Um...
4.5 = 4.50 = 4.500000000000000000000000000000000000000
I dont understand what the big hassle is over this. 4.5 is 4.50, doesnt matter how you look at it. Of course seeing as Patchou has always used a 2 digit after the mayor build (3.00, 4.25, etc) the correct for Plus! right now would be 4.50
it's different.. it is not a decimal number
But if Patchou really wanted to make a difference he would have problably released
4.50.0
then
4.50.1
Since he obviously hasnt (he has to those that know about build numbers; RTW was 310 and now it is 312) So 4.50 is 4.5
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by markee on 12-17-2007 at 04:03 AM
Have a read through my previous post before posting such rubbish. I explained the numbering system that Patchou uses.
The latest build was just a few minor bug fixes that were overlooked in 310 and hence only requiring a build number change as it didnt add functionality. A revision number is used when he needs to add something small and a minor when it has been a while and there are a few new things. The minor gets bumped from 2 or 3 to 5 when there are significant changes, but not enough for a major build, and then that brings us to a major build. Please look listen and understand the other posts in a thread before making a post yourself. Furthermore, VERSION numbering is NOT DECIMAL.
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by riahc4 on 12-17-2007 at 12:51 PM
quote:But most programmers consider and display it decimal.
Originally posted by markee
Furthermore, VERSION numbering is NOT DECIMAL.
RE: RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by andrewdodd13 on 12-17-2007 at 01:02 PM
quote:Which is wrong.
Originally posted by riahc4
quote:But most programmers consider and display it decimal.
Originally posted by markee
Furthermore, VERSION numbering is NOT DECIMAL.
(And further to the previous posts, I think you were right about me contradicting myself Cookie, it was quite late at night, and I wasn't thinking straight).
Of course, what we've overlooked is.. what happened to 4.3 and 4.4?
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by markee on 12-20-2007 at 09:43 AM
quote:As I explained, the x.5y version numbering is used when there i a significant enough changes to disassociate it from other minor builds, however not enough for a major build (just like what WLM/MSN uses/d).
Originally posted by andrewdodd13
quote:Which is wrong.
Originally posted by riahc4
quote:But most programmers consider and display it decimal.
Originally posted by markee
Furthermore, VERSION numbering is NOT DECIMAL.
(And further to the previous posts, I think you were right about me contradicting myself Cookie, it was quite late at night, and I wasn't thinking straight).
Of course, what we've overlooked is.. what happened to 4.3 and 4.4?
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by Guido on 12-26-2007 at 12:50 AM
Hey guys, I think most of us have agreed that version numbering conventions in the development world don't use decimal numbers and by *those* conventions 4.5.xxx != 4.50.xxx, but I think we're making too much of a fuss over something that should just be focused on what most people will understand or not. 4.5 (in mathematics not in version numbering, and remember it's not a version number) means 4 and a half, with or without trailing zeros, and that's what the 4.5 means in the website: the 4th and a half revolution in Messenger Plus history.
(I know most in this thread agreed that 4.5 could be seen as 4.05, i.e. 45 minor revisions before 4.50, but consider the potential thoughts of the thousands of people who couldn't care less about participating in a forum thread about version numbering and are quite used to the mathematical view of a number with one single dot acting as a decimal separator).
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by CookieRevised on 12-26-2007 at 12:18 PM
So you're saying and assuming that everybody who reads it on the main page sees it as a number with a decimal point and/or doesn't care about it?
This is not the case; there are also people who do know about proper version number formatting (without reading this thread) and do care about it.
In fact, one must actually read this thread to understand what the 4.5 actually means. Even those who still see it as a version number didn't even know that it was meant to be the milestone (or branding or revolution or whatever you call it) four and a half!!!
Thus my point was to make it so that there is no confusing for anybody, including those who don't know about version numbers, including those who don't care about it and including those who do know about version numbers (and including those who see it as a brand name).
This can only be accomplished if you show 4.50...
The reason why I personally made such a fuss about it is because if people are constantly going to ignore these facts or do as if it doesn't matter, nobody would ever learn how to use version numbering properly. I know there are more important things in the world. But simply stating "who cares" or ignoring it isn't helping either. Why would you do/make something which can be seen as confusing to some people, while you can make it not-confusing for everybody, with the same amount of effort?
RE: [split] Version numbers: 4.5 vs. 4.50 by Vilkku on 12-26-2007 at 12:34 PM
Another example of a program not using decimal numbers (and where there actually is a big difference if you would see the version numbers as decimal numbers) is World of Warcraft. The first patch was called 1.1, then followed by 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 etc. (including some minor patches as 1.8.1, 1.8.2...) until after 1.9 came 1.10, 1.11 and 1.12. If you would consider these as decimal numbers, 1.12 (released August 2006) would be considered older than 1.3 (released March 2005).