Lindens + Math?

Realize this is just funny but after the "prefab house can't fit on prefab lot" thing I just noticed this:

Release Notes, Version 1.1.1 October 22, 2003

Release Notes, Version 1.1.10 December 8, 2003

*snicker*

That's a lot of updates, yes.

From the files of Police Squad:

"Is this some kind of a bust?"

"That's very nice, yes."

I'm.... afraid you miss understand

Hope you're not saying 1.1.1 is numerically the same as 1.1.10.

This is common confusion. The update after 1.1.9 is 1.1.10, which is not the same as 1.1.1. The number at the end represents the number of updates since 1.1, rather than some form of double decimal system.

Ok, I can accept that the industry has decided that it is no longer a decimal system for updates.

But if its not then why is it:

One point one point ten

If its not decimals?

Further evidence: If it is NOT a decimal like system of ten then it goes up by 11's????

There was no 1.1.11 we went to 1.2[.0 presumably]

Only recently (within the last 3-5 years) have I started seeing version numbers writen in the X.X.X format. Before this time they would be written in a standard decimal X.XXXX format.

I think this is just some kind of selfcontious symptom of the gaming industry to hide a lot of updates.... which scarily leads me to the conclusion that AOL/TimeWarner is the only company honestly printing its verison number heh.

I believe the reasoning is that 1.2 was a major update, where the 1.1.xx updates were primarily bug-fixes. Had there only been bug fixes for some time, it would have continued along those lines.

I'm not entirely certain when it started happening that way... I just remember being excessively confused the first time I had to figure out which linux kernel was newest, and I was still thinking in the old format.

I know that officaly that increasing the FIRST number means basicly the program has goten a major overhaul since the initial iteration of 1.0

I'm willing to bet there isn't a letter of code in SL that hasn't been touched since 1.0 so thustly we should be in 2.0 or somewhere upwards of 1.5 at least

Well, then there is that saying that goes: "There are only 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't."

We reached at least 1.0.12 (or was it 14?) before we hit 1.1 . The period is just a common seperator. You wanna see some really rediculous ones, have a look at some linux version numbers. 3 or 4 decimals with numbers greater than 20 or 30 if not common are not hard to find.

And don't forget Microsoft Word, which went from version 3 directly to version 6, just because at the time WordPerfect was in version 5.

Mac: rolfmao - I never heard that one before.

Just because the version numbering system uses the same delimiter doesn't mean it's decimal. Kind of like saying that because ! is used in programs, it must mean <exclamation> instead of "not".

-Morse

Right I can accept all this but why then did it jump from 1.1.10 to 1.2 ? What then happend to 1.1.11, 1.1.12, 1.1.13 etc...

And what defines the need for each section of the version number to go up?

Or should we just pretend the version number is some arbitrary referance that as long as it is different and larger than the previous dosn't matter? (and I'm asking the lindens here, I know the answer I'll get from you guys )

Morse Dillon - Just because a programing language miss uses punctuation dosn't mean everyone else should. If another language jumped off a bridge.... (heh)

Its not arbitrary, kinda, it is subjective though. The further right the number change, the more minor the change. Why are you focusing on 1.2 release only? Before 1.1 there was 1.0.12 or 14 or something. In beta I don't think we ever even hit 0.9 before 1.0.

The answer more simply is that the third place is for bug fixed and random small features - usually to fix bugs, the second is for new features, the first is for complete and total overhauls of the game. 1.1.10 is a bug fix from 1.1.9. 1.2 is a large feature update from the 1.1 series.

Basically you can tell the difference in the game between 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 versions. The difference between 1.1.4 and 1.1.5 you probably need to read the release notes to figure out - they are both version 1.1 just with some minor changes.

The subjective part is in between the first two really - how big a change is still only a 0.1 change in version and how big a change is needed for a 1.0 change in version?

Thats the root of my reason for this thread (beyond the fact that I think the numbering system is silly)

If the first digit is for a complete overhaul, hasn't the game been completely (or dang nearly so) overhauled since 1.0?

I could be wrong but haven't we had just as many/just as big of hanges from like 0.2 (0.3?) when I started to 1.0 ?

(*ok I don't remember the version number when I joined. what was it late march?)

I'm sure they are simply working from some plan of theirs that includes all the features they want to put in version 1.0.

And they're probably waiting for something to become widespread (ie 64bit computing) before putting out 2.0.

And yes, there was an 0.9. Very briefly.

I figure Gwyd's trying to pull some teeth at Linden Lab about more possible features, especially his beloved Havok 2.2, or whatever version number it will be at when we get it

Hmm all this versioning talk makes me want to check my various desktops to see what version numbers Windows has...

Honestly that wasn't even on my mind but...

We want Havok 2.x!

I'm realy just confused on what the numbers account for.

(deliberately)

There's no need to be frightened. I don't bite hard.
And surely you know my last name is Sandgrain, but feel free to call me Ana.

Windows 95 is Win 4.0. '98, '98SE, and ME are all Windows 4.1.

On the WinNT side, Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.0, while WinXP is Windows NT 5.1. You can tell the difference between service packs by looking at the build numbers (the fourth decimal).

*Head explodes*

Actually my windows version right now (XP Pro SP1) is
Version 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 Build 2600

Which is I think what you are saying, just clerifying that its not a decimal system for windows either.

:igh:: Here's how I understand version numbers. 'course most software houses don't really give a damn anymore, thanks to MS switching to the year system and charging us $200+ each year for the latest and (not so) greatest code.

:: puts on abestos underwear, and steps on soapbox::

x.y.z

x represents production versions of said code ( or architecture, like Apache has a 2.0 and a 1.x out. 2.0 is not stable yet, so most use 1.x). if it's missing (or a zero) it's a beta version.

y represents a major milestone or "freeze" in the development cycle of that particular architecture of that product (Like freebsd uses 4.8 at the moment, 4.8 is the latest code that has been declared "stable", whereas 4.9.x would be still under development and still may be buggy)

z represents patches or minor revisions. like bugzilla's latest stable version is 2.16.4. they've revised the stable code 4 times since they declared that codebase stable.

You are welcome!

::teps off soapbox::