Absolutely! I'm sure Google have loads of internal build numbers during testing but they really need to start rounding them off when they do public releases. There's really no excuses for releasing software to the public with version numbers relating to internal build codes.
Another piece of software that endlessly irritates me with pointless version codes is video conversion utility ffmpegX. It’s been stuck on 0.0.9 for about two years but they keep going through the alphabet with after tags. 0.0.9a, 0.0.9b, 0.0.9c etc). Developers really need to have sensible public facing version schemes that make it easy for users like ourselves to differentiate between releases.
Existing users, log in. New users, create a free account. Lost password?
Version Numbers - C Bennett
Absolutely! I'm sure Google have loads of internal build numbers during testing but they really need to start rounding them off when they do public releases. There's really no excuses for releasing software to the public with version numbers relating to internal build codes.Another piece of software that endlessly irritates me with pointless version codes is video conversion utility ffmpegX. It’s been stuck on 0.0.9 for about two years but they keep going through the alphabet with after tags. 0.0.9a, 0.0.9b, 0.0.9c etc). Developers really need to have sensible public facing version schemes that make it easy for users like ourselves to differentiate between releases.
Reply to This | Parent
Thursday, May 10 2007 @ 03:30 AM PDT