Does it make sense not to reset the last digit in the version number

Question

We are in the process of changing the version and dependency management system of our Middleware (MW) software, and we are thinking of something like this:

a . b . with d

a - main version

b - backward compatibility gap

c - new functionality

d - Bug fix

But with a slight twist, as we need to minimize the number of packages we send to customers, due to the size of the software and the slow network.

Thus, the idea was only to reset the error correction number when changing backward compatibility. Using this logic, we could create an automatic system that only generates a new package, if there were any errors in the version installed by the client, and that it meets the requirements of the new FrontEnd (FE).

To better display this scenario, consider a few examples:

Logic Rise

Package decision logic required

Although this is non-standard version control logic, do you guys see any problems with this logic?

Answer 1

There is no problem skipping version numbers (or with complex version numbering) if you have internal logic that your company understands and respects. (If something doesn't change ... Microsoft will skip version 9 of its window systems.)

[major]. [minor]. [release]. [build] is used by quite a few companies.

In our company, we added one additional parameter outside of [build], called [private].
[The main]. [Minor]. [Release]. [Build]. [Private]

In our logic, [private] is used for an internal sequence for testing errors. (We intentionally violate our code so that we can check for errors.) But before releasing the code, [private] must be set to zero. Thus, no code leaves the office if .0 is not at the end of the version number. This is a reminder for programmers to remove (or comment out) their test coding, and this is a reminder for testers not to send code intended only for testing.

In the 80s, I also read something about the psychology of version numbering. Some companies may go directly to [minor] release 3 so that they look like they did more tests than they really did. They also avoided going above 7 because they made them look like they fixed too many errors and were prone to terribly mistaken code. This psychological perception of clients or clients can be quite strong and can be a huge debate between programmers (who are usually fairly literalists) and marketers (who see logic as fluffy after thought).

With this in mind, to answer your question: your logic is fantastic ... now sell it to the marketing department. (Or even better ... do not sell them to them, just realize it and hope that they do not knock on your door, neither in the closet nor in the cache.)

Good luck with your design. :)

Answer 2

[ home ]. [ minor ]. [ release ]. [ build ] (a widespread template from this post: https://stackoverflow.com/a/167379/ )

Deviation from the template

You have a specific reason for this, so I don't see any problems. (Your specific logic seems fine to me too.)

About resetting the last number

This is really not a problem. In the answer above, you can even see the use of the SVN version as the suggested number to use.