Re: Software version numbering system
Re: Software version numbering system
- Subject: Re: Software version numbering system
- From: James Duncan Davidson <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:11:51 -0800
On Nov 24, 2003, at 11:30, Chad Armstrong wrote:
>
Ultimately, I'm looking for some suggestions on whether my software
>
should be a 0.0.1 or 0.1.0 bump, or perhaps even something in the
>
middle like 0.0.5.
Common hacker wisdom follows the Major.Minor.Patch scheme that you
would expect. However, once marketing becomes a force at any company,
these schemes go out the window and you see variations happen.
For example, Java went from JDK 1.0 to 1.1 to Java 2 (version 1.3) to
Java 2 (version 1.4). Microsoft has done the same thing with changing
their version numbers. And others do it as well.
Bottom line, version number choices are a marketing decision. Always
have been, always will be. Choose the version numbering that makes
sense for your market and your customers as there are no hard and fast
rules.
With Mac OS X, I don't think we'll see Apple move from version 10 for a
while even though 10.2 and 10.3 were bigger releases than a dot
version--mostly because they are heavily invested in the term "Mac OS
X" for a system name. And this may be one reason why they are
progressively moving to using codenames instead of numbers. It was "Mac
OS X 10.2, Panther" for the last release. Now it's "Mac OS X Panther"
with 10.3 in smaller print. After all, it's going to get harder for
people to pay $139 for just a "dot" release. Even when it brings all
the stuff that the last two releases have brought.
[demime 0.98b removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s]
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.