Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • 1
    This tends to follow the pattern I've seen used successfully in many projects, large or small. It is very effective. Commented Oct 16, 2010 at 12:09
  • 1
    How does/should "build number" relate to "changeset identifier (hash)"? Is it part of the hash, incremental, or something else? Commented Jul 23, 2013 at 13:28
  • @Jace, where I work we use Mercurial, and go off the changeset number. We only ever push to/pull from a single repository, so the number is not unique to the specific checkout. We then have [major].[minor].[changeset] accordingly (though the major and minor numbers are often more marketing than indicative of progress since the last version). Commented Feb 8, 2015 at 21:37
  • 1
    Does "build number" imply that it's just minor tweaks like bug fixes? Should any new functionality at least get its own revision number? Commented Apr 5, 2017 at 14:44
  • 2
    I encourage everyone to actually read the article that Mike B is referring to. Atwood suggests to NOT use the .NET or any numbered versioning and use date-based versioning instead. Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 20:45