The Amazing World of Software Version Numbers

Harry writes "In theory, software version numbers should be incredibly mundane. In reality, companies have long twisted them for marketing purposes, avoided ones they didn't like, and even replaced them with things other than numbers. I've prepared a tribute to them with some facts and ruminations, but there's a lot I don't know, and I'd appreciate help on the historical side of things. (Anyone know when the standard decimal point-based system came into use?)"

Comments

What now?

[Anonymous Coward]

...standard decimal point-based system...

What is this standard you are referring to?

Re:What now?

[diskis]

1.1.1 -> 1.1.2 - bugfix only, no change in what the end-user sees.
1.1.1 -> 1.2.0 - new features, perhaps a button in the UI has moved. Still fully compatible with the previous version. Documents should be stored identically, network protocols unchanged.
1.1.1 -> 2.0.0 - major release, might very well break functionality, documents may have to be converted from previous versions, UI can change drastically.

Re:What now?

[wkurzius]

1.1.1 -> 2.0.0 - Expect 2.0.1 within the week.

FFx2

[T Murphy]

All I know is with Firefox on 3.5 and Windows on 7.0, Windows must be twice as good as Firefox. AOL of course trumps everyone.

Don't forget TIFF

[Anonymous Coward]

All TIFF files have a version number of 42, chosen, according to the developer docs, for that number's deep philosophical significance.

Re:0.97 0.98 0.99 ???

[idontgno]

Which points up (no pun intended) the semantic confusion of using "." ("period", "full stop") as a version component separator. Semantically, it's not a decimal radix point. Therefore, the second component of your hypothetical version is not 99/100, it's integer 99. Therefore, integer 100 is indeed > integer 99, and the "." shouldn't be pronounced as part of it.

That doesn't happen, of course; we all* say "point 99" or the like, which is exactly the same as if the "." were, in fact, a decimal point.

*Not strictly "all"; I usually say "dot" instead of "point", partly because of this confusion. This usage became mainstream with "dot Net" since the string "Net" makes no sense as a real number "r" such that 0 > r > 1.

Re:w/r/t Windows

[subanark]

Actually the reason the minor version number started at 16386 is that the part of the upper bits for the version number are used to indicate branch. In this case the release bit is set to 1, if this was a 'test' build then it would be set to 0. Another bit (which isn't set) is used for the corporate branch, which includes security updates that aren't as fully vetted and changes to core components requested by corporate partners. Additionally, the lower 16 bits of the build (6000) is used to indicate service pack (at least that was the plan right before release). This change to how service packs were handled was done in the last month, and yes Microsoft fudged the version number towards the end so it would be 6000 (although it was close to that at the end).

(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)

Re:Different people, different numbering schemes.

[veganboyjosh]

Odd numbers for unstable releases?

That you, Gene Roddenberry?

Re:os x - Don't forget LOLCAT editions?

[Webcommando]

Apple will have even more names when they move into LOLCAT space: Serious Cat, Ceiling Cat, Basement Cat, Itty Bitty Kitty Commiteh, and Monorail Cat.

The possibilities are endless!