add@sciences.sdsu.edu (James D. Murray) (09/21/90)
Is there a standardized version numbering system used
for computer software? It seems there are so many different
formats of version levels (e.g. 3.0, 3.03, 3.0.3, 3.0-1, 3.03f,
B3.03, etc.) that I have no idea which one to use for my own
software. I suppose most people just use the format that their
their source code librarian uses, but I am not using one.
References? Ideas?
>>>>+=====+> * <+=====+<<<<
James D. Murray, Ethnounixologist "Riker! Stop that smirking!"
Anaheim, California, U.S.A. -- J-L. Picard
Internet: add@sciences.sdsu.edu (130.191.224.2)
Bitnet: bardic@calstate.Bitnet (130.150.102.1)alanw@ashtate (Alan Weiss) (10/06/90)
In article <1990Sep21.051542.23913@ucselx.sdsu.edu> add@sciences.sdsu.edu (James D. Murray) writes: > > Is there a standardized version numbering system used >for computer software? It seems there are so many different >formats of version levels (e.g. 3.0, 3.03, 3.0.3, 3.0-1, 3.03f, >B3.03, etc.) that I have no idea which one to use for my own >software. I suppose most people just use the format that their >their source code librarian uses, but I am not using one. > > References? Ideas? > Well (smirking), here goes (note position of tongue): A "1.0" version of anything == beta quality product. A "1.1" version of a product == a first release that actually works (often referred to as a 1.1.1, in which case its called an "in-line"). A "2.0" version of a product == major functionality added. OK. Seriously, a x.0 version is a major new version of a product with major features/functions added. A 1.1 (or 1.2 or 1.3 or 4.5) is a major bug-fix version with limited function added. A 1.1.1 or 2.1.3 is a minor bug fix version (or patch) with no new function added. A 1.0 version is still Beta quality :-) ........................... | Alan R. Weiss | | 213-538-7584 | | alanw@ashton | |!uunet!ashtate!alanw | |alanw@ashton.A-T.com | |Or try using "R" or "r" | ..........................|