I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major Minor Revision Build
-
Chaps, a programming question. Versioning. Is it:
- Major. Minor. Revision. Build
- Major. Minor. Build. Revision
and why? I've always put build last and it literally just counts the numer of builds. Revision to me is for minor bug fixes and is a developer set number (unlike build.) So why does .NET 2.0 and other systems put Build before Revision? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
According to Joel, you should be doing a daily build regardless... http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000023.html[^] Chris LaQuerre eBusiness Projects Leader There is no 'patch' for stupidity. - quote found on SQLSecurity.com
-
According to Joel, you should be doing a daily build regardless... http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000023.html[^] Chris LaQuerre eBusiness Projects Leader There is no 'patch' for stupidity. - quote found on SQLSecurity.com
My build machine does a CVS stat overnight, and if anything has changed, it updates and builds automatically. Works great, plus it means you only get a build if something has actually changed. It emails me the build logs, so I know first thing in the morning if the build failed (and why).
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecott -
Chaps, a programming question. Versioning. Is it:
- Major. Minor. Revision. Build
- Major. Minor. Build. Revision
and why? I've always put build last and it literally just counts the numer of builds. Revision to me is for minor bug fixes and is a developer set number (unlike build.) So why does .NET 2.0 and other systems put Build before Revision? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Major . Minor . Revision . Build Our build number scheme is YYDDD where YY is the number of years since we started using the scheme (1994) and DDD the day number. For example, todays build number is 11339 - so a typical product version would be 2.0.1.11339. IMHO the build number should be last.
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecott -
According to Joel, you should be doing a daily build regardless... http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000023.html[^] Chris LaQuerre eBusiness Projects Leader There is no 'patch' for stupidity. - quote found on SQLSecurity.com
Yes of course. We have continuous integration and nightly builds. Not sure how that impacts my build/revision number question though. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Major . Minor . Revision . Build Our build number scheme is YYDDD where YY is the number of years since we started using the scheme (1994) and DDD the day number. For example, todays build number is 11339 - so a typical product version would be 2.0.1.11339. IMHO the build number should be last.
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecottSo you could have 2.0.1.11339 and 2.0.2.11339 from one day. (The daily build plus a revision build.) regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Yes of course. We have continuous integration and nightly builds. Not sure how that impacts my build/revision number question though. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Paul Watson wrote:
Not sure how that impacts my build/revision number question though.
Oops. Looks like I made up my own question and answered it. I'll blame that on a rough weekend. Chris LaQuerre eBusiness Projects Leader There is no 'patch' for stupidity. - quote found on SQLSecurity.com
-
So you could have 2.0.1.11339 and 2.0.2.11339 from one day. (The daily build plus a revision build.) regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
We do nightly builds of all our products and we stick to this policy. And we don't use a "revision" build - the "revision" number is at the programmers discretion (we have had that discussion before I think). If someone reports a bug in one of my products, I fix it, test it, commit the change and tomorrows build will contain the change. If someone finds a show-stopper, then they either wait for the fix ( :) ) or they regress to an earlier build (we archive known "good" builds that have been fully QA'd). Using this scheme has been very, very useful over the years. From the build number, we can get easily extract the build date, which in turn could be used with CVS (on the odd occasion where I need to checkout a build from a specific day for various reasons!). Sticking to a single daily build is obviously crucial.
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecott -
Chaps, a programming question. Versioning. Is it:
- Major. Minor. Revision. Build
- Major. Minor. Build. Revision
and why? I've always put build last and it literally just counts the numer of builds. Revision to me is for minor bug fixes and is a developer set number (unlike build.) So why does .NET 2.0 and other systems put Build before Revision? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
we use: Major.Minor.MinorNewFeature.BugFix Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chaps, a programming question. Versioning. Is it:
- Major. Minor. Revision. Build
- Major. Minor. Build. Revision
and why? I've always put build last and it literally just counts the numer of builds. Revision to me is for minor bug fixes and is a developer set number (unlike build.) So why does .NET 2.0 and other systems put Build before Revision? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Hmm. We use
major.minor.build. We don't use a revision level, as that level of granularity isn't necessary given the length of our release cycles. We also don't do automated nightly builds. With four active products, and multiple branches of each, we'd have to dedicate all of our development boxes (not just the build machine) to doing a nightly build.Paul Watson wrote:
So why does .NET 2.0 and other systems put Build before Revision?
A. Somebody at Microsoft just said "Oops". In other words, they screwed up. B. The revision number means something; it refers to a variation on the standard build. For example, version 1.2.327.1 is the English build, 1.2.327.2 is the Spanish build, 1.2.327.3 is the Japanese build for build number 327 of version 1.2.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Paul Watson wrote:
Not sure how that impacts my build/revision number question though.
Oops. Looks like I made up my own question and answered it. I'll blame that on a rough weekend. Chris LaQuerre eBusiness Projects Leader There is no 'patch' for stupidity. - quote found on SQLSecurity.com
hehe no worries, I was just making sure I wasn't missing something in your answer. :) regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Chaps, a programming question. Versioning. Is it:
- Major. Minor. Revision. Build
- Major. Minor. Build. Revision
and why? I've always put build last and it literally just counts the numer of builds. Revision to me is for minor bug fixes and is a developer set number (unlike build.) So why does .NET 2.0 and other systems put Build before Revision? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Doesnt anyone really care? ;P xacc.ide-0.1 released! Download and screenshots -- modified at 13:27 Monday 5th December, 2005
-
Chaps, a programming question. Versioning. Is it:
- Major. Minor. Revision. Build
- Major. Minor. Build. Revision
and why? I've always put build last and it literally just counts the numer of builds. Revision to me is for minor bug fixes and is a developer set number (unlike build.) So why does .NET 2.0 and other systems put Build before Revision? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
i use buildNumber.major.minor.revision because the buildnumber is the most significant piece of information.
-
i use buildNumber.major.minor.revision because the buildnumber is the most significant piece of information.
To whom? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
To whom? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
to everyone. Lets face it: the build number *IS* the version number. the major.minor.revision is just marketing fluff.
-
to everyone. Lets face it: the build number *IS* the version number. the major.minor.revision is just marketing fluff.
I think if I told my mum that I was using Windows XP 2600 she'd have a heart-attack as she'd worry she was only on Windows XP 1. Build numbers are not for normal folk, just us geeks. Remember; we geeks are few. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Doesnt anyone really care? ;P xacc.ide-0.1 released! Download and screenshots -- modified at 13:27 Monday 5th December, 2005
Yeah, sadly, we have to. It is important for bug tracking and client deployments. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
I think if I told my mum that I was using Windows XP 2600 she'd have a heart-attack as she'd worry she was only on Windows XP 1. Build numbers are not for normal folk, just us geeks. Remember; we geeks are few. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
exactly my point. it's only us geeks who need the version info anyway. and to us the build # is most important. the major.minor.revision is for the "public" -- that makes it marketing fluff.
-
I think if I told my mum that I was using Windows XP 2600 she'd have a heart-attack as she'd worry she was only on Windows XP 1. Build numbers are not for normal folk, just us geeks. Remember; we geeks are few. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Paul Watson wrote:
Remember; we geeks are few
but we are strong[^] Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
exactly my point. it's only us geeks who need the version info anyway. and to us the build # is most important. the major.minor.revision is for the "public" -- that makes it marketing fluff.
Marketing isn't fluff. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Marketing isn't fluff. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Paul Watson wrote:
Marketing isn't fluff.
Something too many "geeks" seem to not get at all...
Picture a huge catholic cathedral. In it there's many people, including a gregorian monk choir. You know, those who sing beautifully. Then they start singing, in latin, as they always do: "Ad hominem..." -Jörgen Sigvardsson