In response to:
"Sorry guys, 4th level is where we increment for non interface breaking
changes. I come from the old IBM mainframe school where there were 3
levels to a version number and the 3rd was the mod.
With MS I naturally always think of the fourth as the build number.
>From my perspective they reversed the definitions of the third and
fourth levels, but that's probably a religious debate :)."
This "minor" issue has been confusing to me also. I think I found out why.
In the AssemblyInfo.cs file's generated comments there are ambiguous and/or
conflicting definitions of the versioning elements.
e.g. of comments in AssemblyInfo
//
// Version information for an assembly consists of the following four
values:
//
// Major Version
// Minor Version
// Build Number
// Revision
//
// You can specify all the values or you can default the Revision and Build
Numbers
// by using the '*' as shown below:
[assembly: AssemblyVersion("1.0.1.*")]
This really should read as the following to make sense:
//
// Version information for an assembly consists of the following four
values:
//
// Major Version
// Minor Version
// Revision
// Build Number
//
// You can specify all the values or you can default the Revision and Build
Numbers
// by using the '*' as shown below:
[assembly: AssemblyVersion("1.0.1.*")]
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-
us/vbcon/html/vbconversionnumberingchangesinvisualbasicnet.asp
Is this correct or do I need another cup of coffee this morning?
===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor� http://www.develop.com
Some .NET courses you may be interested in:
NEW! Guerrilla ASP.NET, 17 May 2004, in Los Angeles
http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnetls
View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
