what version number scheme do you prefer?

[AlTech]

hi guys,

I want your help in figuring out what kind of version numbering scheme you guys like the most because despite my beat attempts to refine my technique it is still a bit mediocre imho.

 

which is where you come in. Please vote honestly what is your preferred scheme. This will translate into real world results from me.

 

 

 

 

[samcool55]

Tbh amd has a good one with crimson...

Year - Month - Patch - (optional) hotfix

 

With this kind of numbering you know the release date so you have some kind of idea if it's old or not.

It means something useful and that's tbh important.

[AlTech]

30 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Tbh amd has a good one with crimson...

Year - Month - Patch - (optional) hotfix

 

With this kind of numbering you know the release date so you have some kind of idea if it's old or not.

It means something useful and that's tbh important.

I like Year.Minor.Patch because it allows me to tell what minor version you have. in my opinion the only part which really matters for a time based system is th year because I may not post an update once a month or more often. In fact this would be also kind of useless if the opposite was true and I was releasing an update several times a month.

 

 

I might go for Year.Minor.Patch because of this....

OR Major.Minor.Patch if year isn't too important.

 

EDIT: As of my writing this, 50% like Major.Minor.Patch and 33% like Year.Minor.Patch

 

[flowalex]

I like the way Ubuntu does it with year.month (eg 16.04 2016.April) for the first two sections, then I think patches should follow

[Sauron]

Some of it depends on what software you're developing and how often you update it. If it only gets a major release every year you can go for year.bugfix and leave it at that, if it is more often then I agree with @samcool55

[AlTech]

23 minutes ago, flowalex said:

I like the way Ubuntu does it with year.month (eg 16.04 2016.April) for the first two sections, then I think patches should follow

But what if you only update a few times per year

 

OR

 

if you update once a month

 

OR if you update several times a month?

I'm thinking Year.Minor.Patch

[AlTech]

15 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Some of it depends on what software you're developing and how often you update it. If it only gets a major release every year you can go for year.bugfix and leave it at that, if it is more often then I agree with @samcool55

if you develop a web browser how do you version it?

 

Like Google and increase the Major Version 4-6 times a year?

 

From 50.0.x.x to 54.0.x.x.

 

Cos that is stupid Imho.

[Sauron]

14 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

if you develop a web browser how do you version it?

 

Like Google and increase the Major Version 4-6 times a year?

 

From 50.0.x.x to 54.0.x.x.

 

Cos that is stupid Imho.

Yeah, I wouldn't do that. Date based numbering is better.

[minibois]

major.minor.patch.

it just seems unnecessary to add another number to it and it's not handy to maker the minor higher when you do a small thing new

[flowalex]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

But what if you only update a few times per year

 

OR

 

if you update once a month

 

OR if you update several times a month?

I'm thinking Year.Minor.Patch

Few times a year: do the way Canonical does it, but if there are a lot of updates do it the way you suggest.

[AlTech]

45 minutes ago, flowalex said:

Few times a year: do the way Canonical does it, but if there are a lot of updates do it the way you suggest.

I plan to make several (possibly like 4-6) updates per year and so I think I might go for Year Minor.Patch although most people seem to prefer having Major.Minor.Patch instead........

[Mira Yurizaki]

Here's a thought: define what these things mean to you first, then stick to it.

 

I worked on a user script that I'd say had a rapid development cycle. So up front I defined what my versions meant and stuck to it. I used the major.minor.patch format:

• Major meant any huge code changes or overhauls. This would basically require a regression test to make sure it works and handles faults gracefully 
• Minor meant any new features were added. Testing only involved testing that feature extensively while spot checking the rest 
• Patch mean something was to be fixed or a sub feature added. Spot checking was all that was needed to pass.
• (Edit) I started adding revision letters in case a release needed a quick fix, like I forgot to add an operator somewhere

That's how I did it. But again, define what these things mean to you first.

[pinksnowmanshandle]

I think Maj.Min.Pat is a better layout like Android Lollipop 5.1.1 or Android Marshmallow 6.0.1.

[AlTech]

13 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Here's a thought: define what these things mean to you first, then stick to it.

 

I worked on a user script that I'd say had a rapid development cycle. So up front I defined what my versions meant and stuck to it. I used the major.minor.patch format:

• Major meant any huge code changes or overhauls. This would basically require a regression test to make sure it works and handles faults gracefully 
• Minor meant any new features were added. Testing only involved testing that feature extensively while spot checking the rest 
• Patch mean something was to be fixed or a sub feature added. Spot checking was all that was needed to pass.
• (Edit) I started adding revision letters in case a release needed a quick fix, like I forgot to add an operator somewhere

That's how I did it. But again, define what these things mean to you first.

But would you do that for a web browser though?

 

Cos Chrome doesn't, Firefox doesn't, Opera doesn't and even Edge doesn't.

 

Albeit Vivaldi kind of uses this system.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

But would you do that for a web browser though?

 

Cos Chrome doesn't, Firefox doesn't, Opera doesn't and even Edge doesn't.

 

Albeit Vivaldi kind of uses this system.

If that makes sense to me then sure. Your customers aren't going to care as long as you're consistent. Or you use a marketing name.

 

Also all those browsers you mentioned (except Opera since I don't have it) use a three number versioning notation. Their marketing name is the major version number.

[Azgoth 2]

All things being equal, I like the Major.Minor.Patch scheme, but it works best for things where there isn't a particularly frequent release schedule and the releases come out more or less when they're ready (even if certain dates are targeted).  Anything with a year or month in it is probably better for more rolling-style releases.  Anything that, by design, will have a new major update or patch or version released on a yearly/monthly schedule would work best with Year.Month.whatever schemes.  But all things being equal, I prefer Major.Minor.Patch, with Major.Minor.Patch.Hotfix coming in a reasonably close second.