[Xeo]

I was just thinking, when people come here with problems, they are always asked to report what version of the OS they are running. This is always helpful information. However, there have been several cases when a Security Update has broken something. So someone not running the update wouldn't experience it but they have the same version. Or the other way around, the person might be running 10.2.6 which is the latest and greatest, but a security update they haven't installed would have fixed their problem.

Anyway, I think it would be beneficial if Apple would declare these Security updates as another level down of the .1 releases. I think we would be at 10.2.6.1 now. Server would be at 10.2.6.2.

It kinda looks like an IP but wouldn't it be more specific as to what they have installed?

[snerdini]

I'm not really in favor of adding yet another digit onto the version number...but I do think you have a very good point.

[Scifience]

That makes sense to me. It seems like it would also help the tech support people at Apple.

Do security updates change the build number now? If they do, that kind of serves the same purpose.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Scifience:
That makes sense to me. It seems like it would also help the tech support people at Apple.

Do security updates change the build number now? If they do, that kind of serves the same purpose.

I think it does. I have a system to run a security update on now, I'll do it and report back.

edit: No, I just installed the 2003-06-09 update and it did not affect the build number.

Something should change, I think.

[tooki]

/Library/Receipts contains the receipts for all the Apple installs. That's where you can go to see if you do (or don't) have something installed.

I am against another digit. Soon we'd be like That Other OS, with versions like 4.3.8.6.1456 (a made-up number, but not exaggerated in the number of digits!).

tooki

[namannik]

Security updates could simply add a letter at the end of the version number. Instead of calling it 10.2.6.1 as suggested, it could be 10.2.6a.

[mac freak]

I was just gonna say that namannik.
*seconds that idea*

[Xeo]

Originally posted by namannik:
Security updates could simply add a letter at the end of the version number. Instead of calling it 10.2.6.1 as suggested, it could be 10.2.6a.

It would avoid the extra dot, which is what bothers me the most about my original thought.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by tooki:
/Library/Receipts contains the receipts for all the Apple installs. That's where you can go to see if you do (or don't) have something installed.

I am against another digit. Soon we'd be like That Other OS, with versions like 4.3.8.6.1456 (a made-up number, but not exaggerated in the number of digits!).

tooki

I agree that some versioning schemes are totally out of control to the point where it makes no sense. Apple's scheme is nice, neat, and consistent. We know what each part does. But when you install a security update, they are OS updates which are too small to count as a .1 release, but can affect things.

I like the idea of adding a letter. That's how Blizzard does it. Their versioning makes sense too. For those who don't know Blizzard games, they start out at 1.0, then go to 1.01, 1.02, etc. If there is something minor they need to fix, usually OS dependent, they tack a letter on the end. I've never seen the reason behind using "01" instead of "1" until they hit Brood War 1.10. It wouldn't have made sense to hit 2.0 since it was just another patch, so it's good they left two digits to work with.

Anyway, tacking a letter at the end for security updates would work.

[Moose]

Originally posted by Xeo:
I've never seen the reason behind using "01" instead of "1" until they hit Brood War 1.10. It wouldn't have made sense to hit 2.0 since it was just another patch, so it's good they left two digits to work with.

There's nothing stopping a rational developer from going from 1.9 to 1.10 if you use a versioning method where major, minor, and maintenance version numbers are separated by dots. Using dots and zero-padding seems a bit retarded.

This is somewhat akin to the Mac OS X "What happens after 10.9?" "crisis" that these forums manufacture from time to time. I would not be surprised to see a Mac OS X 10.10 released, with maintenance releases as 10.10.1, 10.10.2, etc.

That said, Apple's current versioning system makes sense. Security updates can be checked for by looking in the Receipts folder as another poster stated above. Incrementing the entire version number should be done only when multiple things are being updated.

[Peter]

Yay!
sounds very cool!