"Update" or "Downdate" - Confustion over DAZ Studio Version Numbers

colin1@pacbell.net[email protected] Posts: 143
edited December 1969 in Daz Studio Discussion

I'm confused by the peculiar versioning scheme used for DAZ Studio.

Why is DAZ Studio version 4.5.1.56 an "Update" for version 4.5.1.6 ?

.56 is obviously a lower number than .6

Comments

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,634
    edited January 2013

    56 is higher than 6, the decimal point has no bearing.

    Post edited by Szark on
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Colin said:
    I'm confused by the peculiar versioning scheme used for DAZ Studio.

    Why is DAZ Studio version 4.5.1.56 an "Update" for version 4.5.1.6 ?

    .56 is obviously a lower number than .6

    It is version four dot five dot one dot fifty-six as opposed to version four dot five dot one dot six (not sixty)...it's not 'decimal'...

  • colin1@pacbell.net[email protected] Posts: 143
    edited December 1969

    Thanks.

    Since DAZ is not conforming to "industry standard" version notation, I'd suggest they pad the version numbers with zeros to make them "logical."

    4.5.1.006
    4.5.1.056

    etc.

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Colin said:
    Thanks.

    Since DAZ is not conforming to "industry standard" version notation, I'd suggest they pad the version numbers with zeros to make them "logical."

    4.5.1.006
    4.5.1.056

    etc.

    Yeah, you and me both...but hey, it's art, not programming...right?

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 97,151
    edited January 2013

    I'm not sure what you mean by industry standard - applications which use multiple numbers, rather than a single digit-dot-subnumber, usually work this way as far as I recall. It's only those that have only one dot that treat the number as if it was a decimal. For example, I'm viewing this page in Firefox 18.0.1, not 18.0.001.

    Post edited by Richard Haseltine on
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    I'm not sure what you mean by industry standard - applications which use multiple numbers, rather than a single digit-dot-subnumber, usually work this way as far as I recall. It's only those that have only one dot that treat the number as if it was a decimal. For example, I'm viewing this page in Firefox 18.0.1, not 18.0.001.

    Yes, but FF plans to be to at least 18.1 before it gets to 18.0.10...

    What is so hard about adding a zero?

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,634
    edited December 1969

    To be fair does it really matter, once we know the numbering convention all becomes clear. :)

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Szark said:
    To be fair does it really matter, once we know the numbering convention all becomes clear. :)

    True...but it's those that don't know it that are asking the question almost every update...

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Posts: 376
    edited December 1969

    Fools. It is very obviously a standard build version numbering convention.

    It reads major build 4, version 5, minor build 1, version 56.

    Pffff...:P

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,634
    edited December 1969

    Fools. It is very obviously a standard build version numbering convention.

    It reads major build 4, version 5, minor build 1, version 56.

    Pffff...:P

    ROFLOL
  • MorpheonMorpheon Posts: 738
    edited December 1969

    Colin said:
    I'm confused by the peculiar versioning scheme used for DAZ Studio.

    Why is DAZ Studio version 4.5.1.56 an "Update" for version 4.5.1.6 ?

    .56 is obviously a lower number than .6

    Yeah, I saw that, too, and I thought "that can't be right". But then I remembered that it's DAZ, so who the hell knows?

  • MorpheonMorpheon Posts: 738
    edited December 1969

    Szark said:
    56 is higher than 6, the decimal point has no bearing.

    That would make sense if it had originally been .06, not .6.

  • prixatprixat Posts: 1,585
    edited December 1969

    Colin said:
    Since DAZ is not conforming to "industry standard" version notation...

    As Microsoft says the good thing about standards is that there are so many of them! :-P

    The 'dotted-quad' is well established in computing, for example, IP addresses. Which also have no leading zeros!

    My money is on Major.Minor.Revision.Build

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,634
    edited December 1969

    "sigh"

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,259
    edited January 2013

    Actually, I remember many programs using the same numbering scheme as DAZ is using. It was not at all uncommon, in the past at least. If there was some 'industry coalition' other then MS that agreed on a standard I missed it (which I may have.) I have not seen any programs I can remember which padded with zero.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • cm152335cm152335 Posts: 421
    edited January 2013

    another idea to define number version is the output date!! year/month/day

    v4.5 - 13,2,2 (version 4.5 - 2013 - February, 2)
    v4.5 - 13,7,5 (version 4.5 - 2013 - Jully, 5)

    the number refer the output day of the public distrubion

    you can use a suffix 'B' for BETA

    Post edited by cm152335 on
  • BejaymacBejaymac Posts: 1,851
    edited December 1969
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the "absolutely final change (to be made after my death)" will be to change the version number to π, at which point all remaining bugs will become permanent features.

    Basic conclusion...there is NO sanity when dealing with version numbers. As long as the developer can keep track of them in a way that makes sense to the developer, anything goes.

  • fixmypcmikefixmypcmike Posts: 19,565
    edited December 1969

    cm152335 said:
    another idea to define number version is the output date!! year/month/day

    v4.5 - 13,2,2 (version 4.5 - 2013 - February, 2)
    v4.5 - 13,7,5 (version 4.5 - 2013 - Jully, 5)

    the number refer the output day of the public distrubion

    you can use a suffix 'B' for BETA

    Shouldn't that be v4.5 - 13,02,02 and 13,07,05? Otherwise people will be asking why 13,12,15 is after 13,2,2, and that would distract from arguments over what order the year, month, and day should be placed in...

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,259
    edited December 1969

    mjc1016 said:
    TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the "absolutely final change (to be made after my death)" will be to change the version number to π, at which point all remaining bugs will become permanent features.

    Basic conclusion...there is NO sanity when dealing with version numbers. As long as the developer can keep track of them in a way that makes sense to the developer, anything goes.

    Pretty much. Versioning goes back to when coding was done 'in house' in a way that every place pretty much set up their own standards. When standards did evolve, they are resisted by people used to doing things a particular way. Versioning was an area where this was even more so as coding standards could evolve in a more modular fashion then changing something like versioning, which is a full on change that makes a break from the old method of keeping track of things. Also, with version number schemes, it doesn't really buy a coding house anything if they aren't interacting on a large scale with other shops as long as they can make sense of it in-house.

  • kitakoredazkitakoredaz Posts: 3,526
    edited December 1969

    I simply ask,, so,, were there real ds 4.1.1.1 or ds 4.2.2.22 or ds 4.3.3.34 version etc?
    or there were ds 4.4.9.99 , 4.5.0 actually,?

    who get those version ? if secret daz member installed them to their PC and tested them?:-)

    ds 4.5.1.56,,, how decide the number? eg 56 or 6 etc,,

    Programmer may like play with number,,, so there must be terrible secret ,,

    and it must be somekind encryption for space alien ,,,,DAZ programmer may send message them,,.:shut:

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,259
    edited January 2013

    I can't say about DAZ's numbering scheme in particular, but generally when this type of numbering scheme is used the number is indicative of (not necessarily a direct count of) the number of changes since the last version. 6 -> 56 would tend to indicate a good number of tweeks.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,259
    edited December 1969

    Another point some might not be aware of. For some programmers (not necessarily DAZ) having to explain and defend your versioning system is akin to the first step in having to explain and defend your coding practices, which is why some programmers won't even broach the topic. They tend to see it as a mechanism there primarily for them to keep track of where they are with the code and only secondarily for the end users to keep track of it. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, simply pointing it out.

  • fixmypcmikefixmypcmike Posts: 19,565
    edited December 1969

    I simply ask,, so,, were there real ds 4.1.1.1 or ds 4.2.2.22 or ds 4.3.3.34 version etc?
    or there were ds 4.4.9.99 , 4.5.0 actually,?

    who get those version ? if secret daz member installed them to their PC and tested them?:-)

    ds 4.5.1.56,,, how decide the number? eg 56 or 6 etc,,

    Programmer may like play with number,,, so there must be terrible secret ,,

    and it must be somekind encryption for space alien ,,,,DAZ programmer may send message them,,.:shut:

    Generally the last number is a build number, and many builds are never released. If that's the case here, then this is the 56th build of the 4.5.1 fork, and about 50 of those builds were internal builds which were never released even as betas.

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Generally the last number is a build number, and many builds are never released. If that's the case here, then this is the 56th build of the 4.5.1 fork, and about 50 of those builds were internal builds which were never released even as betas.

    Looking at the change log...that's a very good possibility.

  • niccipbniccipb Posts: 483
    edited December 1969

    Hi...

    For anyone who may be interested... ;-)

    From the 4.5.0.114 change log...

    - Merged 4.1.x logs to 4.5.x
    - Changed minor version number to the public release track * 4.5.x.

    - DAZ Studio : Incremented build number to 4.5.0.1

    this followed Incremental build number 4.1.0.95

    I would guess that enough changes and additions were made to warrant the jump in numbering...

    nicci... :)

  • kitakoredazkitakoredaz Posts: 3,526
    edited December 1969

    Thank mike ^^;) sorry,, it was,,,,,, joke,,,,

    then,, actrually I checked about daz change log, getting some difficlulity with beta daz released before.
    so that,, I understood how DAZ put their version number. (not so feel strange)

    sometimes DAZ put Jump up number,, (I think when daz release product ver?)
    when they jump up, there seems no exact rule. but I do not care about number how daz put on their product,

    I simply hope install newest prodcut version, and it can work well without new problems.
    and DAZ offer good documentation about thier improvements and where they change.
    (eg 4.1 to 4.5.0 ) (4.5.0 to 4.5.1.56)

    change log is useful,, but about many case,, User can not remember about each .
    so about new improvement or critical change need more clear guide. and caution.
    (eg when change how to save data,, DAZ need to announce it more clear)

Sign In or Register to comment.