I distribute software online, and always wonder if there is a proper way to better define version numbers.
Let's assume A.B.C.D in the answers. When do you increase each of the components?
Do you use any other version number tricks such as D mod 2 == 1 means it is an in house release only?
Do you have beta releases with their own version numbers, or do you have beta releases per version number?
I'm starting to like the Year.Release[.Build] convention that some apps (e.g. Perforce) use. Basically it just says the year in which you release, and the sequence within that year. So 2008.1 would be the first version, and if you released another a months or three later, it would go to 2008.2.
The advantage of this scheme is there is no implied "magnitude" of release, where you get into arguments about whether a feature is major enough to warrant a major version increment or not.
An optional extra is to tag on the build number, but that tends to be for internal purposes only (e.g. added to the EXE/DLL so you can inspect the file and ensure the right build is there).
In my opinion, almost any release number scheme can be made to work more or less sanely. The system I work on uses version numbers such as 11.50.UC3, where the U indicates 32-bit Unix, and the C3 is a minor revision (fix pack) number; other letters are used for other platform types. (I'd not recommend this scheme, but it works.)
There are a few golden rules which have not so far been stated, but which are implicit in what people have discussed.
Now, in practice, people do have to release fixes for older versions while newer versions are available -- see GCC, for example:
So, you have to build your version numbering scheme carefully.
One other point which I firmly believe in:
With SVN, you could use the SVN version number - but probably wouldn't as it changes too unpredictably.
For the stuff I work with, the version number is a purely political decision.
Incidentally, I know of software that went through releases from version 1.00 through 9.53, but that then changed to 2.80. That was a gross mistake - dictated by marketing. Granted, version 4.x of the software is/was obsolete, so it didn't immediately make for confusion, but version 5.x of the software is still in use and sold, and the revisions have already reached 3.50. I'm very worried about what my code that has to work with both the 5.x (old style) and 5.x (new style) is going to do when the inevitable conflict occurs. I guess I have to hope that they will dilly-dally on changing to 5.x until the old 5.x really is dead -- but I'm not optimistic. I also use an artificial version number, such as 9.60, to represent the 3.50 code, so that I can do sane if VERSION > 900 testing, rather than having to do: if (VERSION >= 900 || (VERSION >= 280 && VERSION < 400), where I represent version 9.00 by 900. And then there's the significant change introduced in version 3.00.xC3 -- my scheme fails to detect changes at the minor release level...grumble...grumble...
NB: Eric Raymond provides Software Release Practice HOWTO including the (linked) section on naming (numbering) releases.
I usually use D as a build counter (automatic increment by compiler) I increment C every time a build is released to "public" (not every build is released) A and B are used as major/minor version number and changed manually.
I think there are two ways to answer this question, and they are not entirely complimentary.
The bottom line, I think, is finding a model that works for you and your customers. I've seen some cases where even versions are public releases, and odd versions are considered beta, or dev releases. I've seen some products which ignore C and D all together.
Then there is the example from Micrsoft, where the only rational explanation to the version numbers for the .Net Framework is that Marketing was involved.
Our policy:
People tend to want to make this much harder than it really needs to be. If your product has only a single long-lived branch, just name successive versions by their build number. If you've got some kind of "minor bug fixes are free, but you have to pay for major new versions", then use 1.0, 1.1 ... 1.n, 2.0, 2.1... etc.
If you can't immediately figure out what the A,B,C, and D in your example are, then you obviously don't need them.
The only use I have ever made of the version number was so that a customer could tell me they're using version 2.5.1.0 or whatever.
My only rule is designed to minimize mistakes in reporting that number: all four numbers have to be 1 digit only.
1.1.2.3
is ok, but
1.0.1.23
is not. Customers are likely to report both numbers (verbally, at least) as "one-one-two-three".
Auto-incrementing build numbers often results in version numbers like
1.0.1.12537
which doesn't really help, either.
A good and non-technical scheme just uses the build date in this format:
YYYY.MM.DD.BuildNumber
Where BuildNumber is either a continuous number (changelist) or just starts over at 1 each day.
Examples: 2008.03.24.1 or 2008.03.24.14503
This is mainly for internal releases, public releases would see the version printed as 2008.03 if you don't release more often than once a month. Maintenance releases get flagged as 2008.03a 2008.03b and so on. They should rarely go past "c" but if it does it's a good indicator you need better QA and/or testing procedures.
Version fields that are commonly seen by the user should be printed in a friendly "March 2008" format, reserve the more technical info in the About dialog or log files.
Biggest disadvantage: just compiling the same code on another day might change the version number. But you can avoid this by using the version control changelist as last number and checking against that to determine if the date needs to be changed as well.
In the github world, it has become popular to follow Tom Preston-Werner's "semver" spec for version numbers.
From http://semver.org/ :
Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes. Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format.
I use V.R.M e.g. 2.5.1
V (version) changes are a major rewrite
R (revision) changes are significant new features or bug fixes
M (modification) changes are minor bux fixes (typos, etc)
I sometimes use an SVN commit number on the end too.
Its all really subjective at the end of the day and simply up to yourself/your team.
Just take a look at all the answers already - all very different.
Personally I use Major.Minor.*.* - Where Visual Studio fills in the revison/build number automatically. This is used where I work too.
I like Year.Month.Day. So, v2009.6.8 would be the "version" of this post. It is impossible to duplicate (reasonably) and it very clear when something is a newer release. You could also drop the decimals and make it v20090608.
In the case of a library, the version number tells you about the level of compatibility between two releases, and thus how difficult an upgrade will be.
A bug fix release needs to preserve binary, source, and serialization compatibility.
Minor releases mean different things to different projects, but usually they don't need to preserve source compatibility.
Major version numbers can break all three forms.
I wrote more about the rationale here.
For in-house development, we use the following format.
[Program #] . [Year] . [Month] . [Release # of this app within the month]
For example, if I'm releasing application # 15 today, and it's the third update this month, then my version # will be
15.2008.9.3
It's totally non-standard, but it is useful for us.
For the past six major versions, we've used M.0.m.b where M is the major version, m is the minor version, and b is the build number. So released versions included 6.0.2, 7.0.1, ..., up to 11.0.0. Don't ask why the second number is always 0; I've asked a number of times and nobody really knows. We haven't had a non-zero there since 5.5 was released in 1996.
© 2022 - 2024 — McMap. All rights reserved.