Documenting the Version of Software

How does it work?

[Nick_W]

Hi all,

I've been wondering what the rules are with versioning.

Like my-app 0.94 or my-app 1.3 etc....

I want to let users of a piece of software know if it has been updated and wish to do it correctly. Can anyone offer some advice?

Nick

[waldemar]

In it's .NET documentation Microsoft recommends a version system like this:

mainversion.subversion.build.revision

while mainversion is a real major update, subversion is a minor update, build and revision are internal development numbers. I am using it, cause it makes sense and feels common sense when reading version numbers.

When I see my-app 0.94 I think of a piece of really good shareware that is just on the jump to being a regular commercial product with growing support.

When I see my-app 1.3 this must be the first coming-out of a product that has been updated enough to probably run stable and include some user feedback.

(Personal opinion ^^^^)

[korkus2000]

1.0 should be full release. Your point system will vary. Some relate how many bugs are fixed to what the point is. If you fixed 24 bugs then some use 1.24. Others may use the actual build number. You can really make it anything you want. Most software will go to a new full version when a significant piece of functionality has been introduced. So if you added a new section and some bug fixes to 1.0 then it should go to 2.0.

You should create a scope for each new version like 2.0 3.0. That way you have a target during development.

[Nick_W]

Excellent! Thanks guys I must be on 1.2 then I reckon ;)

Nick

[dmorison]

Hi Nick,

No strict rules; versioning goes from the sublime to the ridiculous, as you've discovered!

If you are planning on selling or licensing your software then you might want to say that "free" upgrades would be available through minor increments; (i.e you can upgrade to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc.) whereas a new major release - perhaps incorporating a new feature would require a new purchase, and be numbered 2.0.

[waldemar]

Of course there are alternative version numberings like:

3.0 -> 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> 98SE -> Me -> 2000 -> XP

which confuse customers unneccessarily ...but these are very special cases ;-)

[edited by: waldemar at 5:40 pm (utc) on June 16, 2003]

[Nick_W]

>>very special cases

Best description of M$ EVER! heheheehe ;)

Nick

[waldemar]

whereas I'd prefer the numbering:

series + enginesize + specialties

like 325i
:-)
(this isn't really off-topic, is it?)

[mil2k]

Please remember the marketing importance of version number. Also since you have decided it to be 1.2 in future releases whenever you change only some funtionality increase the version by .1 . If you change the interface then you have a good reason to directly move to version 2 without going through 1.3,1.4..etc.

I recollected some fond college memories when you brought up this subject. We released version 1.0 and then for every compile in VB selected an autoincrement version counter. ;)
Didn't take long to get a very professional looking Version number :)

[DaveN]

we run with

1.0 release

1.0a ,b,c bug fixes

1.1 for upgrades

2.0 for new addons

some of our stuff is at 6.15b

Dave

[anallawalla]

3.0 -> 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> 98SE -> Me -> 2000 -> XP

which confuse customers unneccessarily

Quite true. 2000 was an update of NT, not Me. :)

[txbakers]

And then you have Java, currently running at 1.4.1_02

(which is really called Java 2).

Go Figure.