zaphod Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 What is the deal with the C4 OS numbering scheme? Shouldn't the first version of 2 have been 2.01 rather than 2.1? Because we now have a situation where 2.10 is out, but it is not the same as 2.1 and it is the version after 2.9. I am guessing that this will, or already, has caused confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msgreenf Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 no, why should it has been? the 2 dot 1 version was 2.1.0. This release is 2.10.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstafford388 Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Yeah, this shouldn't confuse anyone. 2.1.0 is different than 2.10.0. It's written differently and spoken differently so I'm not sure where the confusion would come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegreatheed Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 there also was a 2.0.1. c4 can name is 2.324.2 for all i care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukas.polivka Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 This versioning scheme is quite common. It's similar to http://semver.org/ but Control4 does not really strictly follow it. (They add new features to what should be maintenance releases.) But for example Firefox and Chrome have mostly moved away from this scheme and they just increment an integer number. Other projects use something like YEAR.RELEASE (17.1) or YEAR.MONTH (17.09) etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod Posted September 18, 2017 Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 2 hours ago, msgreenf said: no, why should it has been? the 2 dot 1 version was 2.1.0. This release is 2.10.0. When I went to school 2.1 = 2.10 as trailing zeros can be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msgreenf Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Just now, zaphod said: When I went to school 2.1 = 2.10 as trailing zeros can be ignored. you are missing the periods. They matter 2.10.0 is this release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukas.polivka Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 1 minute ago, zaphod said: When I went to school 2.1 = 2.10 as trailing zeros can be ignored. Version numbers are not decimal numbers. They are three separate integers, just (visually) divided by periods: major.minor.patch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod Posted September 18, 2017 Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 Ok, uncle - I give up. My final point on the topic is that the periods matter only when the second period is used, and that rarely happens. On the first page of these forums there are at least four threads mentioning 2.10 - none of them mention 2.10.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msgreenf Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Ok, uncle - I give up. My final point on the topic is that the periods matter only when the second period is used, and that rarely happens. On the first page of these forums there are at least four threads mentioning 2.10 - none of them mention 2.10.0The official release is 2.10.0 no matter what anyone calls it here Sent from my BBB100-1 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegreatheed Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Leeds UK Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 This is the worst topic we have ever had - come on people sort it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Leeds UK Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 32 minutes ago, thegreatheed said: 762 drivers bloody he'll you running NASA ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Lowe Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 30 minutes ago, Gary Leeds UK said: 762 drivers bloody he'll you running NASA ? ITS the number of local drivers in composer before my laptop died i had installed over 1500 different drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msgreenf Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 15 minutes ago, Matt Lowe said: ITS the number of local drivers in composer before my laptop died i had installed over 1500 different drivers. right, it just means that you work with a lot of customers with different hardware... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 3 hours ago, msgreenf said: right, it just means that you work with a lot of customers with different hardware... Pffft, 3800+ on mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 5 hours ago, zaphod said: When I went to school 2.1 = 2.10 as trailing zeros can be ignored. Sure, but you're not doing math here so the rules don't apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod Posted September 18, 2017 Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 To put it in computer terms it appears that OS version is of type string rather than numeric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, zaphod said: To put it in computer terms it appears that OS version is of type string rather than numeric. Correct - also note that the complete, full version number actually contains letters as well as numbers (-rez for example). I get where you're coming from, but at the same time going to a .10 or beyond version number in software is fairly common, as the first number generally indicates mayor version overhauls vs additions and updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesc4 Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 I would have thought it was time for 3.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 4 hours ago, jamesc4 said: I would have thought it was time for 3.0 Perhaps - not sure I quite agree as there is a LOT of things in flux at the moment, particularly on the voice control level. Even so I'm not sure Composer/the system is due a full overhaul. Regardless, that doesn't really influence the reasoning of using a ".10" designation as such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koxkp Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Sure, but you're not doing math here so the rules don't apply.I was trying to let this thread die out, but I think in math and computer science this is called "significant digits" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 2 hours ago, koxkp said: I was trying to let this thread die out, but I think in math and computer science this is called "significant digits" True, but we're still not doing math here, we are in fact dealing with a 'name' if you will And it will never die! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msgreenf Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Maybe control4 should start naming the releases totally differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.