Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC
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
|
Bob,
I'm from the software production world. I understand exactly how programs and operating systems handle dates (usually poorly).
My comment was a joke. Go back and re-read it, especially considering the legendary 'quality' of Kobo's firmware.
I think the date correspondence is accidental. In the software build world, releases are tagged with when they are built, not when they start. I think the latest release started after the finalisation of the Dec release, not in October 2015.
As an example, Microsoft's programming tools use a mangled date to tag a build/release if you use their automatically build numbering system.
The numeric difference between the two releases, 148 for roughly 20 days, suggests that the number is a build number from a CI (continuous integration) system, building approx. 7-8 times a day. Or, for all we know, Kobo only has one programmer working on the firmware, and this is just the incremental build number from the compiles/links.