humble suggestion for version numbering?

[nsurg]

All thanks to Pete for what seems to be the best version of a droid rom out there, even more amazing considering that his overall approach is essentially coming from one person...

I wondered if I might make a possible suggestion?
When I follow threads it is easy to see the update patterns, but might it not be simpler to number the new versions based on the android system first, and then based on pete's mods?

For example, we could now be on 2.2.2.1b or so, with the first 2.2 referring to the android software base. Another option might be to include start with android as 2.2.57 and then his version as .2? I know it seems like a lot of periods, but lots of other software does this.

I think it might be easier for the johnny-come-lately crowd to save posts explaining why pete's 1.1 is old, yet 0.2.1 is newer, let alone the archived threads and how-tos out there that refer to the 2.0 based android roms which also had a series of numbers that overlaps.

I'll shut up now, thanks again for the nice software!

[mza929]

i was thinking the same thing this morning....

[JonDenver'sCopilot]

I think its a great idea to make a more standard versioning. However, too many numbers per version may be too much for some people to handle. Maybe something like this:

Pete left off on v1.1 ESE81, he could just start this as v2.0 RC1 (v.1), v2.0 RC2 (v.2), v2.0 RC2.1 (v.2.1) for anything FRF57 moving to v2.1 RC1 (versions with the next leak) until a final OTA is pushed out.

I'm sure we could go all day with different ways to version it, I just thought it might weigh in with another idea. Simply put though, the OP is right....a standard versioning is needed to keep continuity between versions.

[ZeroBarrier]

For example, we could now be on 2.2.2.1b or so, with the first 2.2 referring to the android software base. Another option might be to include start with android as 2.2.57 and then his version as .2? I know it seems like a lot of periods, but lots of other software does this.

Pete already does this, hence the FRF57 then his version 0.2.1. You seem to be just nit-picking the fact that he's not using the 2.2 that is a more generalized version numbering.

I actually like the version numbering as it is, since it gives you a better understanding of what real version of android you are running by just looking at the code version + ROM version.

[Ecnassianer]

Yeah, but it takes a good bit of thinking to figure out that FRF57 is newer than ESE81 as well.

Not to mention that a fair amount of the time people only write half the version number they're talking about (stop saying 21 when you mean 0.2.1!)

Having a numbering system that keeps BB releases in a comprehensible order seems like a very good thing for everyone.

[Se7enLC]

I'll be happy if the version number just keep going up, rather than jumping down. :-)

The numbers don't HAVE to mean anything, but I'll agree that it does get a little confusing to explain that BB version 1.0 and 1.1 are running AndroidOS 2.1 and BB version 0.1 and 0.2 and 0.2.1 are running AndroidOS 2.2. It also gets confusing when numbers get reused.

For example, google for Bugless Beast 1.2. That came out mere months before 1.1... :-P
[ROM 2.0.1] Bugless Beast V1.2 (3/1/10) by Pete

[ZeroBarrier]

Yeah, but it takes a good bit of thinking to figure out that FRF57 is newer than ESE81 as well.

Unless you don't know how the English alphabet is ordered, it should be common sense that E (as in ESE81) comes before F (as in FRF57).

Again, anyone with 2 brain cells can figure this out, but I will agree with you to a point; not to many people out there with 2 brain cells, so they say 21 instead of 0.2.1.

[Ecnassianer]

Unless you don't know how the English alphabet is ordered, it should be common sense that E (as in ESE81) comes before F (as in FRF57).

That might fly if they were just letters (E81, F57), but they're acronyms, which have no default sorting order, and are not often alphabetized.

Consider this similar case (in alphabetical order):

Windows 3.1
Windows 7
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 2000
Windows ME
Windows NT 4
Windows XP
Windows Vista

There's no way to tell the order without knowing it ahead of time (or knowing what sorting method the author intends for you to use).

Just because you understand it, doesn't mean it's the simplest/best way of doing it.

[Ecnassianer]

Ah, and in the name of being constructive toward the point of this thread I propose:

OS_Major_Revision.OS_Minor_Revision.Pete_Major_Rev ision.Pete_MinorRevision (Kernel Revision)

So the current experimental build would be:
2.2.0.2b (FRF57)

And the current stable build would be:
2.1.1.1 (ESE81)

That way there's a clear "this is newer than that" understanding, and it's still obvious which build it's based on.

One weakness I see is that it fails to reflect that BBv1.1 contains a few bits from Froyo/2.2, while previous versions were purely Eclair/2.1. However users can infer that anything higher than 2.1.0.0 has something newer than Eclair, and I doubt many people will care to know the origin of some of the pieces just from reading the version number (that's what the changlog is for!)

[rattsabre]

C upcake (1.5)
D onut (1.6)
E clair (2.0/2.1)
F royo (2.2)
G ingerbread (3?)