Thread: Firmware 3.19.5761
View Single Post
Old 01-14-2016, 07:41 AM   #70
davidfor
Grand Sorcerer
davidfor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.davidfor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.davidfor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.davidfor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.davidfor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.davidfor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.davidfor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.davidfor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.davidfor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.davidfor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.davidfor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 24,905
Karma: 47303824
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Device: Kobo:Touch,Glo, AuraH2O, GloHD,AuraONE, ClaraHD, Libra H2O; tolinoepos
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC View Post
No - just since 9 Oct 2015 , the previous version would have been started on 14 May 2015.

The dates are formatted dd/mm/YY in the spreadsheet I used - apologies for any confusion caused by date formatting.

The number is the number of days since the reference date when work started so they commenced work on 9 Oct 2015 a date which the spreadsheet (and other systems which count from the beginning of the millenium) expresses as 5761. How long they worked on it would be the actual date of release minus that date.

I use LibreOffice as a spreadsheet - I think Microsoft use a different reference date so others might see different results if they try to reproduce my calculation.

Bear in mind it's just a theory and with only two data points to test on it could well be proved wrong in the future, it does make sense to assign a name when the work starts rather than at some time in the future when it's for for release.
That is far to complicated. The number is simply a build number. It's the number of times they have built the built the firmware since adopting this system.
davidfor is offline   Reply With Quote