Daz Version Numbering Mystery: 4.15 = 4.9???

ToBoldlyGo

Could someone explain to me what is going on with the version numbers of DS? I see reference to 4.8, 4.9, etc. But my product library and the forum reference 4.15.xx being the current version. The page for the 4.15 release talks about version 4.9 being installed. I don't see an equivalent page in the forum about 4.8/4.9/etc. releases. The beta in my product library, seems to be 4.15.xx as well. Is there a later release than 4.15 (say 4.9?) that is only installable via connect or is something else going on?

Richard Haseltine

9 is smaller than 15. Note the extra .x.x in the numbers you quote - these are not decimals, they are four integers (major version.minor version.revision.build)

ToBoldlyGo

OK, I guess the best way to put it is that decimal notation (i.e., 4.9=4.90, commonly used with "Wintel" software versioning) is not being used, though I'm not certain what to call the notation that we commonly see in the Linux world (where 4.9 is 4.09 decimal). Thank you for the explanation, that clears up my confusion.

prixat

In the jargon, it's called a dotted quad.

Richard Haseltine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Sequence-based_identifiers

ToBoldlyGo

Thanks guys. I guess the double decimals was what was throwing me off (i.e., 4.80) vs.x.x.x (etc).

johndoe_36eb90b0

DAZ should really switch to semantic versioning.

That said, main problem with using both existing and sematic versioning is that there are still a lot of file systems and related software which use broken sorting instead of natural sorting so you get:

1.1.3
1.12.5
1.19.1
1.2.45

Instead of:

1.1.3
1.2.45
1.12.5
1.19.1

Making it really hard to find and download the latest version (linux software I am looking at you).

That can be worked around by zero-padding minor and patch so you have:

1.01.03
1.02.45
1.12.05
1.19.01

And then even filesystems and software using broken sort will sort them properly.

Richard Haseltine

johndoe_36eb90b0 said:

DAZ should really switch to semantic versioning.

That said, main problem with using both existing and sematic versioning is that there are still a lot of file systems and related software which use broken sorting instead of natural sorting so you get:

1.1.3
1.12.5
1.19.1
1.2.45

Instead of:

1.1.3
1.2.45
1.12.5
1.19.1

Making it really hard to find and download the latest version (linux software I am looking at you).

That can be worked around by zero-padding minor and patch so you have:

1.01.03
1.02.45
1.12.05
1.19.01

And then even filesystems and software using broken sort will sort them properly.

Aside from having only a single patch number rather than the current revision/build I don't see any great difference - certainly not for end-users.

PerttiA

Maybe they didn't predict that the minor version would go past 9 

SemperFiLeo

Okay so why is 4.2 showing as the latest? AFTER 4.9???? Still doesn't make any sense even with the above explanation. 

PerttiA

SemperFiLeo said:

Okay so why is 4.2 showing as the latest? AFTER 4.9???? Still doesn't make any sense even with the above explanation. 

There is no DS 4.2 and has never been.

The current version is 4.20 (four point twenty) 

Leana

Version numbers are not decimals, so 4.20 is not the same as 4.2

The first number is the major version, and the second number is the minor version. Current version is 4.20 as is "minor version 20 of major version 4". So yes, it's newer than 4.9 aka "minor version 9 of major version 4".

Richard Haseltine

PerttiA said:

SemperFiLeo said:

Okay so why is 4.2 showing as the latest? AFTER 4.9???? Still doesn't make any sense even with the above explanation. 

There is no DS 4.2 and has never been.

4.2.x.x would be from the beta period. I think we just got up to 4.3.x.x before they went to 4.5.x.x for the first General Release

The current version is 4.20 (four point twenty) 

PerttiA

Richard Haseltine said:

PerttiA said:

SemperFiLeo said:

Okay so why is 4.2 showing as the latest? AFTER 4.9???? Still doesn't make any sense even with the above explanation. 

There is no DS 4.2 and has never been.

4.2.x.x would be from the beta period. I think we just got up to 4.3.x.x before they went to 4.5.x.x for the first General Release

http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/change_log_4_5_0_114

Jumps from 4.1.0.95 to 4.5.0.1 

Richard Haseltine

PerttiA said:

Richard Haseltine said:

PerttiA said:

SemperFiLeo said:

Okay so why is 4.2 showing as the latest? AFTER 4.9???? Still doesn't make any sense even with the above explanation. 

There is no DS 4.2 and has never been.

4.2.x.x would be from the beta period. I think we just got up to 4.3.x.x before they went to 4.5.x.x for the first General Release

http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/change_log_4_5_0_114

Jumps from 4.1.0.95 to 4.5.0.1 

I stand corrected, sorry.

TheMysteryIsThePoint

johndoe_36eb90b0 said:

DAZ should really switch to semantic versioning.

That said, main problem with using both existing and sematic versioning is that there are still a lot of file systems and related software which use broken sorting instead of natural sorting so you get:

1.1.3
1.12.5
1.19.1
1.2.45

Instead of:

1.1.3
1.2.45
1.12.5
1.19.1

Making it really hard to find and download the latest version (linux software I am looking at you).

That can be worked around by zero-padding minor and patch so you have:

1.01.03
1.02.45
1.12.05
1.19.01

And then even filesystems and software using broken sort will sort them properly.

The problem with that is that there is no OS support for this in Windows, so version numbers are ultimately meaningless beyond marketing. Compare this with how shared objects are versioned in POSIX based OSes.