Well I think verion numbers should be based on both criterias. Let me write my thoughts using an example. your orgnaization develops software, the current verion of the latest package released is PK3.2. Bugs start to appear and they are addressed by emergency fixes, lets say PK3.2-HF1, PK3.2-HF2, ..., PK3.2-HFx and requests for enhancements are being addressed with patches PK3.2-patch1, PK3.2-patch2, ... , PK3.2-patchx
All those emergency fixes, enhancements, and other are at a certain stage introduced in a new package PK3.3 from which cycle continues.
I hope I gave a clear address to the right question.
Hey Thanks Ziad....
But if we go by what you have suggested, i have one more query.
Let me put down what i have understood....
At any point of time an application should have a single current version in the live environment. So as you mentioned let the current version of the latest package released is PK3.2
When the first bug appears you can fix it by emergency release and call it PK3.2-HF1(Current version). But the doubt i have is "Why cant it be called as Delta release?" and have the current version as (say) PK3.2-D1. An application can't have two versions - one due to emergency release and one due to delta release right?
Anyway your inputs have given some very useful new dimensions of thinking. Thanks again.
Last edited by P-De on Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Even though Frank's answer is more practical, I wish to continue our discussion and answer your questions for the sake of information. I may have understood things wrong for example, and that's a good opportunity to correct my knowledge.
The software/package in production is comparable to the major_identifier in Frank's example.
I mentionned Emergency Fix on purpose in my example because it is a different classification than a delta release.
You're right about something, the version should contain three identifiers as in Frank's example, I was basing my answer on the version numbering within an organization I know and yes, I missed a part. The naming was: Product-Version_Patch-version_HF-version.
I would rather combine the 6 types and come up with 4:
- Delta Release: that I called patch in my earlier example, new piece of code added to existing SW (that covers minor and major)
- Package Release: Full or Delta or Full+Delta (Full Release is covered here, so no need to have it as a seperate type)
- Emergency Fix: a hot fix required to be deployed asap to address a certain issue.
Sounds good to me but Frank's method is more practical and this is how the Service Support ook describes the release identification.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum