Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!ashtate!alanw
From: alanw@ashtate (Alan Weiss)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Standardized version numbering system (Is there one?)
Message-ID: <1359@ashton.UUCP>
Date: 6 Oct 90 01:25:47 GMT
References: <1990Sep21.051542.23913@ucselx.sdsu.edu>
Reply-To: alanw@ashton.UUCP (Alan Weiss)
Organization: Ashton-Tate, Torrance, CA
Lines: 38

In article <1990Sep21.051542.23913@ucselx.sdsu.edu> add@sciences.sdsu.edu (James D. Murray) writes:
>
>	Is there a standardized version numbering system used
>for computer software?  It seems there are so many different
>formats of version levels (e.g. 3.0, 3.03, 3.0.3, 3.0-1, 3.03f,
>B3.03, etc.) that I have no idea which one to use for my own
>software.  I suppose most people just use the format that their
>their source code librarian uses, but I am not using one.
>
>	References? Ideas?
>

Well (smirking), here goes (note position of tongue):

A "1.0" version of anything == beta quality product.
A "1.1" version of a product == a first release that actually works
 (often referred to as a 1.1.1, in which case its called an "in-line").
A "2.0" version of a product == major functionality added.

OK. Seriously, a x.0 version is a major new version of a product
with major features/functions added.

A 1.1 (or 1.2 or 1.3 or 4.5) is a major bug-fix version with limited
function added.

A 1.1.1 or 2.1.3 is a minor bug fix version (or patch) with no new
function added.

A 1.0 version is still Beta quality  :-)

...........................
|	Alan R. Weiss     |	
|	213-538-7584      |
|       alanw@ashton      |
|!uunet!ashtate!alanw     |
|alanw@ashton.A-T.com     |
|Or try using "R" or "r"  |
..........................|