On 7/6/05, Allie Martin wrote: > With all the sudden jumps or changes in TB! version numbering that's > intended and not a typo, there has always been a mathematical increase > in the numbers.
That is not exactly correct. If you recall, 3.5.30 was followed by 3.5.0.31 (or something like that). And it was not the first time this has happened. So I am only proposing that a clear and consistent system be adopted. Quite frankly, I was not expecting that 3.5 would be followed by 3.51. This took me by surprise. My point is that if RL considers this to be just a minor improvement, then they should change the numbering in the third set of digits. Nothing is stopping RL from releasing 3.5.38. Why must RL go from 3.5 to 3.51? It makes no sense to me. Like I said, this is not mathematics. Either change the third group of digits or go from 3.5 to 3.6. > If you've installed the latest MSI, open the readme file in the > installation directory and follow the version numbering from TB!'s > earliest versions. There has always been a mathematical progression in > version numbering. Yes and no. Take for example the series: 1.1 to 1.101 to 1.14 to 1.15. Now that might be mathematical, but surely you can see that the 1.101 stands out and is confusing. Why couldn't it have been 1.11 or 1.12 or 1.13? > Proposing that 3.10 follow 3.9 would certainly take them way off > course with how they've been doing their numbering. I don't think so. It is just a different way of looking at that numbering. Perhaps the main exception would be the peculiar 1.101 that I mentioned above. But, looking at the readme file, I see several styles of version numbering: 1.xx.xx 1.xx Build 1.xx Preview > > The point is that version numbers are not purely mathematical. > > This may indeed be the case for only a few apps. However, TB!'s > version numbering has always followed a mathematical progression. Like I said, that is just one way of looking at things - and not really the most significant way of looking at things, in my opinion. But there need not be a conflict here. The simple solution would have been to number this release as 3.5.38 or 3.6. That would have satisfied both of us. > Again, I'm speaking of TB!'s version numbering since its first release > and not for apps in general. So, with their system, they can follow > 3.5.36 with 3.51. Again, what system? The system of numbering has changed many times. > > So my point was only that 3.5 is not at all the same as 3.50. That is > > true in mathematics, but it is not necessarily so with respect to > > software versioning. > > With regards to TB!'s versioning system, it could indeed mean the > same. Allie, you see a system where I see a hodgepodge. I think you give too much importance to this weak mathematical thread (that RL has not been consistent in following anyway... as you well know... 3.5.0.31 being a recent example). > > I don't think so. I am arguing for a logical and consistent system of > > version numbering with TB. > > ... and then propose that *for TB!*, 3.10 could follow 3.9? Yes... but do you really think it will get that far before RL hits us up for another donation? ;-) -- Avi Yashar Windows XP Pro SP2 and The Bat! Pro (No OTFE) 3.51 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.51 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
