U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Search on this site

Search in forums

Home » Community » Coffee corner » U++ versioning

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

U++ versioning [message #10666]

Sat, 21 July 2007 18:43

johnevans77
Messages: 38
Registered: July 2007

Member

Deal all,

How ultimate++ deal with version numbering? Are 505, 605, 606 development version and 2007.1 is stable version? Or bigger version always better and stable?

And, i think in Status & Roadmap, we should put release date:)

Please advise.
JE

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #10667 is a reply to message #10666]

Sat, 21 July 2007 18:52

fudadmin
Messages: 1321
Registered: November 2005
Location: Kaunas, Lithuania

Ultimate Contributor
Administrator

As I understand, from the year 2007 => 2007.x , where x is month number, was decided to mark those as stable versions.

701, 702 etc.
^ the same year - but dev(elopement) versions.
605 - from year 2006 - 5 month (May?)

[Updated on: Sat, 21 July 2007 18:53]

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #10670 is a reply to message #10667]

Sat, 21 July 2007 19:01

johnevans77
Messages: 38
Registered: July 2007

Member

Thanks for the information Smile

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #10679 is a reply to message #10670]

Sat, 21 July 2007 21:11

mirek
Messages: 14255
Registered: November 2005

Ultimate Member

Note that there were two changes in versioning on the way...

First it was regular 0.1, 0.2 etc...

Then we changed to 510, 605 etc... but later started 605dev1 for development snapshots... 10 and 05 are months.

Starting this year, it is 2007.1, where first number is year, second is the release number in the year. Dev version keep 610dev1 "method".

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #10684 is a reply to message #10679]

Sun, 22 July 2007 06:18

johnevans77
Messages: 38
Registered: July 2007

Member

Big thanks for explanation. The latter one should be clearer for some people like me Smile

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #17731 is a reply to message #10666]

Wed, 27 August 2008 16:22

amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France

Experienced Member

Hi

I have an issue with those version names. If I want to make a dynamic .dll for Windows or an dynamic .so for Linux/Unix, I will be in trouble.

Could U++ use something like upp.version.release.bugfix instead of year.bugfix ?

Explanations

Version: incremented if dynamically linked software won't work any more (api changed and old class/functions removed)

release: incremented if new class/functions/variables are added

bugfix: incremented if only bug fix have bean added to previous bugfix-1 release

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #17734 is a reply to message #17731]

Wed, 27 August 2008 16:32

mirek
Messages: 14255
Registered: November 2005

Ultimate Member

amrein wrote on Wed, 27 August 2008 10:22

Hi

I have an issue with those version names. If I want to make a dynamic .dll for Windows or an dynamic .so for Linux/Unix, I will be in trouble.

I think if you are going to do .so, you can perhaps adopt your own scheme.

Quote:

Version: incremented if dynamically linked software won't work any more (api changed and old class/functions removed)

release: incremented if new class/functions/variables are added

bugfix: incremented if only bug fix have bean added to previous bugfix-1 release

Well, unfortunately, in U++ all these things usually happen at the same time... and in reality, nobody tracks them.

Sorry, DLL hell is something we deliberately decided to completely avoid and forget about...

The problem is that in C++, it is way too easy to break binary compatibility. You either have to screw your C++ style and adhere to some "limited C++", or forget about it. We decided, long time ago, to forget about it.

Mirek

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #17742 is a reply to message #10666]

Wed, 27 August 2008 21:08

amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France

Experienced Member

2008 for the year. 01 for the release. From now, all new U++ release with have a name like 20xy.z.

But, for bug fix release, will it be 2008.2 or 2009.1 if the new release come in 2009?

Could U++ use 2009.0.0 instead of 2009.1 for next major release? That way, I will be able to use 9.0.0.

[Updated on: Wed, 27 August 2008 21:16]

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #17750 is a reply to message #17742]

Wed, 27 August 2008 23:49

mirek
Messages: 14255
Registered: November 2005

Ultimate Member

If there is bugfix release, it would be 2008.1.1 or perhaps 2008.1a...

But all of this is not carved in the stone. We can adapt...

Mirek

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #17753 is a reply to message #17750]

Thu, 28 August 2008 00:52

Mindtraveller
Messages: 917
Registered: August 2007
Location: Russia, Moscow rgn.

Experienced Contributor

May be plain solution?
YYYY.MM.DD-vv

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #17755 is a reply to message #10666]

Thu, 28 August 2008 02:25

amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France

Experienced Member

Well there is an issue with y.m.d.v: year month and day are to far from version.release.fix.

It's not interesting to name a library 2008.8.25 and its next release 2009.1.5. Version should not change if you just add a few class/func without breaking compatibility. This is how Linux library naming works. It's because when program X want to link to library 2008.x.x, the dynamic loader won't use the new library 2009.x.x. The dynamic loader will only find and load the library with name 2008.zz.zz

The only solution is from luzr message:

"I think if you are going to do .so, you can perhaps adopt your own scheme."

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #17940 is a reply to message #17755]

Wed, 03 September 2008 19:08

amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France

Experienced Member

No problem with 20xy.z.

For libraries, I will be able to use 0.xy.z.

Note: The zero releases can break API as they want.

Report message to a moderator

Re: U++ versioning [message #17942 is a reply to message #17940]

Wed, 03 September 2008 22:24

bytefield
Messages: 210
Registered: December 2007

Experienced Member

Hi amrein. Even if your suggestions are not all applied to U++ them are useful, so keep posting your ideas. For example i will know which version scheme to apply to my applications from now on Smile

(version.release.bugfix).

cdabbd745f1234c2751ee1f932d1dd75

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	Ubuntu 8.04
Next Topic:	U++ Everywhere

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sat Apr 26 19:34:28 CEST 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00984 seconds