Hands-On: Google Nexus 4
Top message: 4.1/4.2 nomenclature by Prag
Replying to: Re: 4.1/4.2 nomenclature by srich27
Re: 4.1/4.2 nomenclature
It just makes sense for the big 'code named' releases to be the x.0 releases.
But they actually already have 4.1.1, the most recent update was 4.1.2, so this would really have to be 4.1.3.
There is no hard and fast rule for how to number things, but basically the way companies tend to do it is that if there is a significant UI change, then it moves up to the next number, say 2.0 to 3.0, if it is only minor bug fixes that don't introduce significant new features then you increase the third number, so it goes from, say, 3.0 to 3.0.1, and if there are changes more significant enough for the user to notice, but not really big enough to justify increasing the first number, you increase the second, so it goes from 3.0 to 3.1.
But, the definition of 'a significant change' is to a certain extent arbitrary and subjective, so ultimately you can't create a clear 'rule' about it...more of a general guideline....
I mean, look at the Mac OS, it has undergone very significant changes since OS X was introduced in 2001, yet they still call it version 10.....the difference between OS X 10.2 and 10.8 really is significant enough that they really should be moving up to OS XI by now....but they won't simply because 'OS XI' sounds less cool than 'OS X' ....and when Apple does change the version number, it's usually because of a legal reason...the reason for moving from OS 8 up to OS 9 was because Steve Jobs wanted to get out of some contracts that his predecessor had signed, and he noticed that in the contracts they kept referring to 'Mac OS 8' and so he figured that if he changed the name to 'OS 9' then the contracts wouldn't count anymore.....which is kind of sneaky, but there you go.
No replies to this message