Philosophy of build numbers

[simplsol at aol.com]

10.3.9 followed by 10.3.10? Not 10.3.9.1? Not 10.4.0? Not 10.3.91?
How much easier to have 10.03009 followed by 10.03010.
Or if it is a more significant update: 10.04000.

One of the biggest advantages of the "point 5" system is the ability to 
run the same sequence for builds and customer releases. The way I use 
it: the digits to the left of the decimal are the version; the two 
digits to the right of the decimal are for customer releases and the 
last three are for builds (or really minor updates). It is really easy 
to release a build at any time, it's already numbered!
Paul Looney

-----Original Message-----
From: shaosean at wehostmacs.com
To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
Sent: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Philosophy of build numbers

    > I helps avoid the situation where you run out of space for 
numbers: 
  > what comes after OS X 10.3.9? Or 10.4.9? Or 10.9 - if the world is 
not 
 
  How would you run out of numbers?! After 10.3.9 comes 10.3.10 ;-) On a 
weird note I was looking into "version numbers" last week and read a 
nice article on Wikipedia: 
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Version 
 
  As regards to build numbers, I think using both is very handy, my eMac 
runs Mac OS X 10.3.9 (build 7W98) so you can see Apple uses both.. The 
build number isn't something that is normally visible to the end-user 
(they're heavily used during the testing stages though). 
 
 _______________________________________________ 
 use-revolution mailing list 
 use-revolution at lists.runrev.com 
  Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences: 
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution 


________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and 
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from 
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.