Omnimaga
General Discussion => Other Discussions => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Michael_Lee on September 28, 2010, 06:23:44 pm
-
Just a random question:
What kind of system do you guys use for version numbers in your programs? Is there a method, or do people just make up random numbers?
Same thing with the progress bars/percents I see in a lot of signatures. What does it mean for a game to be "43% done", for example? Can't you only give an approximate number at best? idk, it feels kind of arbitrary to me.
(After re-reading, this feels kind of rant-y. I hope I'm not ranting - that would be a bit rude)
-
I believe this has been asked before, but I shall answer with my method. Make a list of the things you need to complete. Then, figure it out based on that.
-
In regards to Phantom Sanctuary, I divide the number of chapters completed by 30.
Otherwise, I divide the number of steps in a project I've completed by the total and round down.
-
I guess. :P Generally, once I guess, though I attempt to make that number go up. ;D
For instance, Exodus is more likely at 92% than 95%, but I don't mind. :D
-
I pretty much give it my best guess :P Based on how long its taken me and how long i expect to keep working on it
-
Yeah, I just give a rough guess as to how much of the code I've done (you can actually estimate pretty accurately the final size of any project if you've done enough coding). I like to keep it in multiples of four, so it's not that arbitrary.
For version numbers, I don't generally use those, but I know in many cases the numbers go up by 0.1s or 0.01s each time (or 0.0000000000001 in the case of the Wacky Fun Random Numbar Generator :D). Some people do it by release (like with Axe), while others do it by each edit, including some that weren't released (like TI with their OS versions). Then, when you think you've made a pretty big improvement, you can step it up by a whole number.
It's all based on your own opinion, I guess.
-
For progress %, I always try to estimate how much I have done. For example, Illusiat 13 was 90% complete because I felt it only needed 10 more percents of completion.
For version numbering, I usually go with 0.01, 0.02, etc, and if I release a minor bugfix with no other change, I may use 0.02a, b, c, etc. But sometimes I feel it's better to just use 1.1.1 or something. first number for very big changes, 2nd for minor updates and 3rd for bug fixes or extremly small changes.
-
Depends, but I usually start at 0.1 and work my way up in 0.1 increments (or 0.01 if it's really small) and jump up 1 whole number if it's a major change.
Other times, I start at 1.0 and go up in 0.1 increments (so same as above).
Never use percents.
-
I used to use 1.0 and limit the 2nd number to 1 digit, but then I experienced issues with some games where I found way too many bugs, so I ended up having to go from 1.9 to 2.0, even if no major update occured. Some people just do 1.9 then 1.10, but IMHO that looks confusing, because it looks like you go from 1.90 to 1.10 instead of 1.09 to 1.10.
-
Yeah, and another annoying thing about that is that in a directory of previous versions, the files would almost always be ordered
1.1
1.10
1.11
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
which looks really confusing to anyone browsing around.
-
Yeah I hate that this happens. Go in Omni downloads section and notice how Illusiat series is ordered x.x
-
It's especially a problem for comp stuff with a lot of known bugs in previous versions :P
-
I generally go by release, where 1.0 is the version I feel is a playable game
ie space dash contest release is 1.0, then the one included in topic thread is 1.1, then ticalc one is 1.2
cuberunner is up to 0.4 now; I've 'released' 4 different versions, each with significant progress. if I only fixed a bug and released it, maybe it'd only increment by 0.01
(for minor projects i increment by .1, but larger ones like axe probably need smaller magnitude)
-
Whenever I download some random programm, there's usually a version history like this:
V0.13B.54: blablabla
V3.15A.12: blablabla
or
V1.1.4C.2443: blablabla
or just
V0.2A
V1.3B
My question is, where do these random numbers come from?
I get that the higher the number, the more recent the version is.
But after an update, the version numbers seem so random...
Is there a structure or rules for this?
-
There's a wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
Some intermediate versions are unreleased.
Some numbers may also be the build number, automatically incremented by the build server, whether its a release build or not.
-
Weird, I never saw v0.13b.54 type verion numbering before. I saw v0.2a, though. Usually, the higher the number, the higher the version is, though, but some people update the number every bugfix x.x
-
Or World of Warcraft, the previous version was: V3.3.5.12340
And thank you for the link, ExtendeD.
Although it still seems that the significance of the change is just something one randomly decides, it's not set in stone.
Thanks!
-
Yeah it's set by the person's decision. I personally just do v1.0. However some more complex softwares like Firefox goes with more complex version numbers too. I think it also depends how often a software public/private download is updated.
-
A more complete discussion about that: http://ourl.ca/7215 (http://ourl.ca/7215).
-
I think people just choose the version numbers
eg Warcraft III v1.24d patch had some random numbers after it
so did v1.24e.
mostly people refer by the number with letter not v1.24.3.6384 (v1.24e)
Also they can choose build numbers
basically when they make a big change they make a larger increment to the number, a small change make a smaller increment
An example would be my poker game for the TI-nspire.
It's currently at 0.9.7 because I know there are some inconstiencies with the play of the game (it doesn't match the official rules)
I started from 0.1 and worked up, with minor changes then versions would be like 0.8.1 0.8.2 etc
-
Sometimes people also refer to a group of version as 1.1.x, for example, in reference to SMF 1.1.1 through 1.1.11. Sometimes, only parts of a number are replaced with a x, like with OS 2.5x MP or TI-8x
-
Ah, and that reminds me: The perfect example of exactly what not to do is TI's use of TI-8x, where the x is an arbitrary number picked for no particular reason :P
EDIT: It gets even more complicated when you take the 73, 76.fr, and 92 into account x.x
-
Yeah, some people refer to z80 calcs as 8x, but the thing is that the TI-89 is not a z80 calc and the TI-73 and 76.fr are z80 calcs.
-
Yeah, calc naming is pretty random too. Casio calcs: the first ones were:
1. fx-7000G, fx-6000G, fx-6500G, fx-7200G, fx-7500G, fx-8000G, fx-8500G.
2. Then newer ones (but still old): fx-7700G, fx-7700GB, fx-8700G, fx-8700GB
3. fx-7700GE, fx-9700GE, fx-9800G, fx-9900G
4. then 7400 series (7400 and variations)
5. The 9850 (or 9x50) series (9850, 9750, 9950, 9970)
This is confusing because even though there are games that say are for the 9x50 series, this includes the 9970.
6. Finally the current calc FX-9860 (and different versions such as FX-9860GII)
As you can see there are random numbers everywhere
If you want to put version numbers for your own programs, I have my personal opinion but the choice is yours.
I like to start from 0.1 and on the way not to have the numbers any more complex than this: x.x.x E.g.: 0.8.3
however if it is a big project then i can use more complex version numbers
But as I say, it's your choice, and basically version numbers are used to put them in order.
also relating to your question above...
V0.13B.54 0.13 version with a beta (or B) 0.54
V3.15A.12: 3.15 version with alpha (or A) 0.12
V1.1.4C.2443: 1.1.4version C? .2443
In my opinion the letters in the middle make it confusing, an example like v0.13.2.54 (2 representing B) or v3.15.1.12 might be better.
V0.2A 0.2 alpha
V1.3B 1.3 beta
These are ok
Overall, they are just used to classify big or small changes in the program.
[TI-nspire OSes are confusing too Eg:
1.1 [noncas] is actually 1.1.9253
2.1 is actually 2.1.0.631
-
For casio calcs, the worst part is that they're all named differently in France. For example, Algebra FX 1.0 is Graph 100, Algebra FX 2.0 is Graph 100+, FX-9860G is Graph 85, and stuff like that
-
True most of them are completely different, and several names!
French versions: 9750 - Graph 30,35,fx-8930GT;
9850,9950 - Graph 60,65,CFX-9930GT,9940,9960;
9970 - Graph 80
That would be so confusing to work out.
At least program version numbers are in order...
-
I think 35, FX-8930GT were 9750+ and GII or something, but I'm not sure anymore. It's really confusing.
TI did that with the TI-83 in europe: it is now called the TI-82 STATS.
-
even though now it's a bit better EDIT: maybe not, it's still confusing with all the 9860 versions:
fx-9860G, fx-9860G SD, fx-9860G Slim, fx-9860GII, fx-9860GII SD,
SD means SD card
slim is a special version that can be folded in half
gii new version technology (but still can be hacked into the original 9860)
fx-9750GII, fx-7400GII these are just remade versions of the originals but with GII technology
And again there are french versions that have completely different names.
ooh i've just seen something.. there's the fx-CG series to be launched next year. Looks like it's the Prizm and again, more random names...
different countries different names
fx-CG10 (North America), fx-CG20
-
This is how most of my versioning works:
0.x is the closed-source working builds.
0.xa is the closed-source public alpha builds.
1.0A is the first alpha release.
After some testing has been done, and bugs have been wrought out:
1.0B is the first beta release.
1.0 is the final release.
1.x includes any updates.
2.0+ are new versions, where I completely start over and make a new program to accomplish the same thing, better.
-
For TI-Boy SE, my versioning started with Alpha 0.0.1, and following versions with small bugfixes were Alpha 0.0.2 and Alpha 0.0.3.
The next version will probably be Alpha 0.1.0, because it has a completely new codebase.
-
For me I usually start at 0.1 or something like that, then increment to 0.2 when I add more features, then go to 0.2.1 when I have a small bugfix, and so on, then 1.0 when the code is kinda finished and polished (i.e. out of beta). Then I could go to 2.0 when I write important rewrites or some event like that. But still, I increment the numbers when I feel like so.
-
I ended up doing this:
a.bb.ccc
a is the main number, b is for medium to small updates, and ccc is the compile number.
It's a bit long, though. I'm probably going to change it.
-
I have yet to decide on a versioning system that I want to use for all my projects but generally I do like:
a.b.c where a is a final release, b is a major change, and c is a minor change
I also have used a.b where a is a major change and b is a minor change I think
-
For TI-Boy SE, my versioning started with Alpha 0.0.1, and following versions with small bugfixes were Alpha 0.0.2 and Alpha 0.0.3.
The next version will probably be Alpha 0.1.0, because it has a completely new codebase.
This means the final version (1.0.0) will also feature GBA emulation? ;D
-
TI did that with the TI-83 in europe: it is now called the TI-82 STATS.
They're the same thing? o.O
-
Yeah.
The TI-83 was discontinued in 2000 or 2001 worldwide. 3 years later, TI re-released it in France, renamed to the TI-82 STATS. It confused people in thinking it's a 82 with new 83 functions, until people discovered 83 programs ran on it but not 82 ones.
-
If only that were true of the TI-84 SE discontinuation...
Renaming it the TI-83 TIME? :P
-
Maybe they will soon release the TI-81 STATS, which will be the TI-82 ;D
-
Hey everyone,
All of us have noticed that we release version 0.1, then 0.2, sometimes we jump, 0.4 and then we release a stable, 1.0 and then we keep up, 1.1.1, 1.1.4, 1.1.8.
Personally, I do that 'randomly', just to look professional I do stuff like:
- Version 0.1
- Version 0.2
- Version 0.4
- Version 0.9
- Version 1.0
- Version 1.1
- Version 1.4
- Version 1.4.1
Do you count number of updates, or you do like me?
EDIT: It's not totally random, major updates, larger difference, smaller updates, smaller difference in the version's names
-
Merged this with the other existing version numbering discussion.
I think people starts at 0.01 or 0.1 depending of their compeltion percentage. It's generally an estimate.
-
I think... people generally do it however they feel like it, and usually try their best to stay consistent, with varying results.
-
Myself, I just try to think of how much is still to be done, and split the project into multiple parts.
In my sig, most of the numbers are kind of made up, but they convey a general idea.
I don't quite believe I'm done with TWHG just yet, but I see it as done for now.
-
I usually start at 0.1 or 0.0.1 (the latter is usually for when I start and little code is wrote), I change the 3rd number for small bugfixes, the second when I have a signifiant amount of improvement. I switch to 1.0 when I feel the software is 100% complete, ready to be shipped in boxes if I were in a company who does that and I change the 1st number when I have a really major improvement or rewrote a lot, if not all the code.
-
Good for the topic to be merged :)
Serious companies such as Microsoft and Google have it all documented:
7.0.517.44
This is my version of Google Chrome (the latest), it's huge, so I think they really care about this number, though.
-
Good for the topic to be merged :)
Serious companies such as Microsoft and Google have it all documented:
7.0.517.44
This is my version of Google Chrome (the latest), it's huge, so I think they really care about this number, though.
Just to let you know (in case you wanted a newer version), 8.0.552.210 is out :)
And yeah, a lot of really big products use long numbers. Kinda overdoing it for a calculator project, though. A.BB.CCC or something like that seems pretty good already.
-
Good for the topic to be merged :)
Serious companies such as Microsoft and Google have it all documented:
7.0.517.44
This is my version of Google Chrome (the latest), it's huge, so I think they really care about this number, though.
Just to let you know (in case you wanted a newer version), 8.0.552.210 is out :)
And yeah, a lot of really big products use long numbers. Kinda overdoing it for a calculator project, though. A.BB.CCC or something like that seems pretty good already.
When I press about, it says "Up to date... Version: 7.0.517.44" :S
EDIT: OH it's a beta :P
EDIT2: Installed
-
Yeah, generally first number is for major updates, second one for minor updates and third one for even smaller updates, such as fixing a typo or small bug. I generally stick to 2 numbers.
Btw wasn't there another topic about version numbers elsewhere? ??? I merged the 3rd one started by Scout but I swear there was a longer one... ???
-
I think there was one on another site, but I don't know. But yeah, now that you mention it, I think that you are correct.
What is the abcd part of the title? Obviously understand version numbers and completion percent, but abcd?
-
Yeah, generally first number is for major updates, second one for minor updates and third one for even smaller updates, such as fixing a typo or small bug. I generally stick to 2 numbers.
Btw wasn't there another topic about version numbers elsewhere? ??? I merged the 3rd one started by Scout but I swear there was a longer one... ???
Yeah, it's here: http://ourl.ca/7279
Another merge?
-
What is the abcd part of the title? Obviously understand version numbers and completion percent, but abcd?
0.1a, 0.1b?
-
I like to use letters for versions of programs that aren't really updates, like different candidates for people to try out.
-
Yeah, generally first number is for major updates, second one for minor updates and third one for even smaller updates, such as fixing a typo or small bug. I generally stick to 2 numbers.
Btw wasn't there another topic about version numbers elsewhere? ??? I merged the 3rd one started by Scout but I swear there was a longer one... ???
Yeah, it's here: http://ourl.ca/7279
Another merge?
Thanks, moved and merged with the current one.
-
I like to use letters for versions of programs that aren't really updates, like different candidates for people to try out.
Quigibo uses both numbers in Axe (0.1, 0.4.5, 0.4.6) and titles (Beta, Zeta, Pre-Alpha, etc.)
-
Yeah, Greek letter titles are pretty widely accepted. Pre-Alpha for bleeding-edge, Alpha for the first working versions (that might still have major bugs), Beta for new versions that should be pretty stable but need to be tested to get rid of bugs, etc. It's all what the programmer decides, of course, but people should stick to conventions like these, at least for titles (so some user wouldn't download an Epsilon thinking it's pretty stable, then get BSoD/BLoD).
-
Yeah, Greek letter titles are pretty widely accepted. Pre-Alpha for bleeding-edge, Alpha for the first working versions (that might still have major bugs), Beta for new versions that should be pretty stable but need to be tested to get rid of bugs, etc. It's all what the programmer decides, of course, but people should stick to conventions like these, at least for titles (so some user wouldn't download an Epsilon thinking it's pretty stable, then get BSoD/BLoD).
They are accepted, but until reading your post, I didn't know Alpha, Beta, Pre-Alpha meant, only Beta.
To be easier for all the public, the number is better, being the version 1.0 the first stable release, and 1.1 for fixing bugs that people found in the main release
-
I never saw anyone other than Quigibo use Delta or Gamma instead of Beta and Alpha before, though...
In Ndless case, it seems ExtendeD is using the same version number as the OS it runs on, now, followed with another number. Example Ndless 1.1 is for OS 1.1, Ndless 1.7 for OS 1.7 and Ndless 2.0 for OS 2.0 (there are exceptions, though, such as Ndless 1.0)
-
I never saw anyone other than Quigibo use Delta or Gamma instead of Beta and Alpha before, though...
In Ndless case, it seems ExtendeD is using the same version number as the OS it runs on, now, followed with another number. Example Ndless 1.1 is for OS 1.1, Ndless 1.7 for OS 1.7 and Ndless 2.0 for OS 2.0 (there are exceptions, though, such as Ndless 1.0)
That's a good idea, but most programs are AllOS Compatible (except for that special case).
In my PC programs I only change the units digit when I make a complete makeover of the GUI.
-
Ah, found it (nice description of how people generally use those terms): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Development
-
I never saw anyone other than Quigibo use Delta or Gamma instead of Beta and Alpha before, though...
That's because its not standard practice, its kind of just an inside joke to extend the releases past beta.
-
Ah, I see now ;D
I guess it's kinda like Wacky Fun Random Numbar Generator v1.00000069. :P
-
I never saw anyone other than Quigibo use Delta or Gamma instead of Beta and Alpha before, though...
That's because its not standard practice, its kind of just an inside joke to extend the releases past beta.
:O It's not that serious, though.
Ah, I see now ;D
I guess it's kinda like Wacky Fun Random Numbar Generator v1.00000069. :P
On the other hand, this is a serious matter and v1.00000069 is the real version, it's not funny at all.
EDIT: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL