I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major Minor Revision Build
-
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
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Remember; we geeks are few
but we are strong[^] Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
:laugh: Nice one 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.
No, it has a much stronger odor. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Remember; we geeks are few
but we are strong[^] Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
:-D Nice one, Chris.
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
-
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. Revision. Build. Build numbers are incremental and unique across all versions of a product, so if someone asks about "Build x" we know exactly which one it is (no "is it 1.0.2.x you mean, of 1.1.0.x?"). The Revision field is only incremented for public releases. So, now that we've just publicly released Visual Lint 1.0.0.40, the next public release will be a 1.0.1.x, which internal development carries on with the next version - 1.1.0.x. That scheme worked well enough at Sonardyne for a team of 10 that its more than good enough for us in our present embryonic state! :laugh: Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.