Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Community » Coffee corner » U++ versioning
U++ versioning [message #10666] Sat, 21 July 2007 18:43 Go to next message
johnevans77 is currently offline  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
Re: U++ versioning [message #10667 is a reply to message #10666] Sat, 21 July 2007 18:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
fudadmin is currently offline  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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
johnevans77 is currently offline  johnevans77
Messages: 38
Registered: July 2007
Member
Thanks for the information Smile
Re: U++ versioning [message #10679 is a reply to message #10670] Sat, 21 July 2007 21:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13975
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".
Re: U++ versioning [message #10684 is a reply to message #10679] Sun, 22 July 2007 06:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
johnevans77 is currently offline  johnevans77
Messages: 38
Registered: July 2007
Member
Big thanks for explanation. The latter one should be clearer for some people like me Smile

JE
Re: U++ versioning [message #17731 is a reply to message #10666] Wed, 27 August 2008 16:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
amrein is currently offline  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
Re: U++ versioning [message #17734 is a reply to message #17731] Wed, 27 August 2008 16:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13975
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


Re: U++ versioning [message #17742 is a reply to message #10666] Wed, 27 August 2008 21:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
amrein is currently offline  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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13975
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
Re: U++ versioning [message #17753 is a reply to message #17750] Thu, 28 August 2008 00:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mindtraveller is currently offline  Mindtraveller
Messages: 917
Registered: August 2007
Location: Russia, Moscow rgn.
Experienced Contributor

May be plain solution?
YYYY.MM.DD-vv
Re: U++ versioning [message #17755 is a reply to message #10666] Thu, 28 August 2008 02:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
amrein is currently offline  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."
Re: U++ versioning [message #17940 is a reply to message #17755] Wed, 03 September 2008 19:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
amrein is currently offline  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.
Re: U++ versioning [message #17942 is a reply to message #17940] Wed, 03 September 2008 22:24 Go to previous message
bytefield is currently offline  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
Previous Topic: Ubuntu 8.04
Next Topic: U++ Everywhere
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Mar 29 08:30:43 CET 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01985 seconds