Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx
Bob, when I read your initial post about this I immediately saw the hilarious side of numbering an update by the number of days that had been worked on it. I appreciate that you are genuine in your thinking, and I do not attempt to cause offence.  |
I wasn't offended. It would be amusing to base the number on the length of time worked on it, which actually wasn't what I meant (though as murg seemed to think that was my suggestion my original post wasn't clear enough). I've seen plenty of stuff with numbering like 20140518 referring to the date of a release (May 14, 2014), it wasn't unreasonable to think someone had used a computer equivalent of a date as a means of identifying it.
No doubt someone who comes from the software production world would immediately understand and recognise build numbers; my background is in Project Management (not specifically software related) and usually a project is identified at inception so dates in 2015 seemed feasible in the absence of any other competing opinions.
BobC