Timeline for How to fit beta versions into a numeric versioning scheme?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2011 at 9:24 | comment | added | stijn | that's true, but there's not really a lot of choice if you have to use numeric only.. Just pick a convention and stick to it. Customers don't care a lot about the numbers, so if everyone in the company knows what it means it's ok. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 9:00 | comment | added | Joh | What disturbs me a bit is that what we call "1.3 beta 2" is the 2nd beta that precedes 1.3. With your numbering scheme, it would be called "1.2.1.2". If I use "1.3.0.2" instead, I get the weird effect that "1.3.0.2" is before the final "1.3.0.0". | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 7:36 | comment | added | stijn | beta follows it, it would be really weird if a higher number would preced a lower one. 1.2.1.1 would be the beta for 1.2.2 or 1.3.0 | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 7:28 | comment | added | Joh | In your example, does the beta release 1.2.1.1 follow the normal release 1.2.1.0 or precede it? | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 20:38 | history | answered | stijn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |