Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2012

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Pet peeve about version numbers of Mathematica

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg128996] Re: Pet peeve about version numbers of Mathematica
  • From: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 01:40:53 -0500 (EST)
  • Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
  • Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com
  • Delivered-to: mathgroup-newout@smc.vnet.net
  • Delivered-to: mathgroup-newsend@smc.vnet.net
  • References: <20121205081738.EFE166920@smc.vnet.net> <20121206095733.1BF9A690D@smc.vnet.net>

In SystemInformation[], one gets the "Release ID" as well as the "Creation Date".

I just installed Windows version:

   Release ID	9.0.0.0 (3868239, 3824638)
   Creation Date Tue 20 Nov 2012 10:45:14

This was from an installer downloaded from the Wolfram User Portal 
yesterday that, I presume, is the corrected version (with the fix about 
previous-version faulty fonts).

Previously, I installed the Mac OS X version:

   Release ID	9.0.0.0 (3825048, 3824632)
   Creation Date Tue 20 Nov 2012 10:31:01

Same Creation Date (except for a 150minute difference) between the two 
platforms.

So how could one tell from SystemInformation whether the Windows version 
is in fact the latest?


On Dec 6, 2012, at 4:57 AM, John Fultz <jfultz at wolfram.com> wrote:

> Actually, in this case, a revision number would *not* have been free. 
> If we had incremented the main version number of the product, it would
> have meant recompiling from source many of the binaries in the product
> to reflect that change.  Which would have in turn required significantly
> lengthening the test cycle.  Which means that we could have been waiting
> until close to the end of the week before delivering a patched installer
> in the best case scenario, even though the only change we really wished
> to make was to the installer.
>
> The installer build went through our automated build system, produced a
> complete log of the build, and was assigned a unique build number.  That
> build number is available in SystemInformation[], since that is recorded
> as a simple text file which is rolled up into the installer at the time
> the installer is built.
>
>
> On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:17 AM, "McHale, Paul" <Paul.McHale at excelitas.com> wrote:
>
>> I recently installed Mathematica 9.0.0 and had the problems.  This was quit
>> e unpleasant but I work with software people who understood.  Things happen
>> .  They asked for specifics, I explained I upgraded from 8.0.4 to 9.0.0 and
>> the problems were severe.  Uninstalled 9.0.0 and the problems were gone.
>> Explained about the problem as WRI explained it.  All is good.
>>
>> A few days later the "new release" is out.  Here is a conversation:
>>
>> Me>> So, the new release of Mathematica is out.  Should fix the problem.  Will probably upgrade next week.
>> Software lead>> What is the new release number?
>> Me>> 9.0.0
>> Software Lead>> Wait (checks notes), OK, you mistakenly reported that as the problematic version.
>> Me>> That is correct.
>> Software Lead>> So you are changing windows to fix the problem?
>> Me>> They updated the release package but did not increase the revision number.
>> Software Lead>> If they are releasing two different items with the same reision number, what is their revision control?  More of a guideline? (Pirate
>> of the Carribean)
>>
>> Industry standard is you have to release different things with different revision numbers.

---
Murray Eisenberg                                    murray at math.umass.edu
Mathematics & Statistics Dept.      
Lederle Graduate Research Tower            phone 413 549-1020 (H)
University of Massachusetts                               413 545-2838 (W)
710 North Pleasant Street                         fax   413 545-1801
Amherst, MA 01003-9305








  • Prev by Date: Re: V9 !!!
  • Next by Date: Re: vector analysis and V9
  • Previous by thread: Re: Pet peeve about version numbers of Mathematica
  • Next by thread: Re: Pet peeve about version numbers of Mathematica