Could there be an opportunity for people to realize there are two sets of versioning numbers. One that devs, techs and admins understand and one that that end users are looking for.
The ewo groups have different expectations. The first group, for purpose of development tracking and keeping testing and progress straight, will use a much more convoluted yet ,to them, incredibly more descriptive, versioning system.
Users only want end results. They want to see "Final" at the end and a synopsis of what has been fix added or upgraded. They couldn't care less that it took the devs 12 attempts to get a certain aspect fixed. All they want is the end with it fixed.
For example, Inhouse, I might use a "test-t" version system, as opposed to the overused alpha-beta system.
If I am working on "Serverjoe" for release. we will maybe use "serverjoe-1-t1-bb" meaning this is serverjoe, destined for release 1,test , done by bb (me). Again, this is all inhouse and only relevant to inhouse deeveleopment team, be they other devs, people who are "testing" for bugs, etc, they are all on the same page and when making notes, we can pick out a specific test to return to or identify.
For the public, all they will see is "ServerJoe 1-Final" and a synopsis of all the goodies contained therein.
Perhaps one part of the problem with releasing public tests is that the end users aren't always the same people you expect to recognize a test from a final product, and are thus easy to confuse. The devs are most responsible for not communicating more clearly that what they have released is only a test and not intended for mass rollout..
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Version labeling is out of control
Posted by: big bear on June 08, 2008 03:29 PMThe ewo groups have different expectations. The first group, for purpose of development tracking and keeping testing and progress straight, will use a much more convoluted yet ,to them, incredibly more descriptive, versioning system.
Users only want end results. They want to see "Final" at the end and a synopsis of what has been fix added or upgraded. They couldn't care less that it took the devs 12 attempts to get a certain aspect fixed. All they want is the end with it fixed.
For example, Inhouse, I might use a "test-t" version system, as opposed to the overused alpha-beta system.
If I am working on "Serverjoe" for release. we will maybe use "serverjoe-1-t1-bb" meaning this is serverjoe, destined for release 1,test , done by bb (me). Again, this is all inhouse and only relevant to inhouse deeveleopment team, be they other devs, people who are "testing" for bugs, etc, they are all on the same page and when making notes, we can pick out a specific test to return to or identify.
For the public, all they will see is "ServerJoe 1-Final" and a synopsis of all the goodies contained therein.
Perhaps one part of the problem with releasing public tests is that the end users aren't always the same people you expect to recognize a test from a final product, and are thus easy to confuse. The devs are most responsible for not communicating more clearly that what they have released is only a test and not intended for mass rollout..
Possible.
#