Re: Pet peeve about version numbers of Mathematica

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg129003] Re: Pet peeve about version numbers of Mathematica*From*: John Fultz <jfultz at wolfram.com>*Date*: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 01:28:16 -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> <20121207064053.A7D7B6929@smc.vnet.net> <DDE67A69-1AAE-443E-B999-122209817A84@wolfram.com> <D3DED176-5A02-470F-9219-F6B1CD06147D@math.umass.edu>

As I suggested before, the issue of "when the build was made" is not entirely straightforward in this case. Most components of the build were made on November 20. The kernel and FE were built on that day, and SystemInformation[] reflects that. But the installer was built later (on Dec. 1, I think). In that context, I don't even properly understand what question you're asking. But I'm telling you what the build numbers were and what they represent. It's not secret information. John Fultz jfultz at wolfram.com User Interface Group Wolfram Research, Inc. On Dec 7, 2012, at 8:36 AM, Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu> wrote: > And how should I guess from the build number when the build was made, if as was my case, I only installed this one build? Will $Version give that? > > > On Dec 7, 2012, at 4:08 AM, John Fultz <jfultz at wolfram.com> wrote: > >> 3868239 is the build number for the fixed installer, so that's what you have. The old installer had a build number of 3825060. >> >> As I mentioned in my previous email, we didn't rebuild Mathematica itself, only the installer. The creation date that you're seeing is coming from Mathematica. That's why there's so little difference between the Windows and Mac creation dates, despite the fact that you installed the updated Windows version. >> >> John Fultz >> jfultz at wolfram.com >> User Interface Group >> Wolfram Research, Inc. >> >> >> >> On Dec 7, 2012, at 12:40 AM, Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > --- > 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 > > > > >

**References**:**Pet peeve about version numbers of Mathematica***From:*"McHale, Paul" <Paul.McHale@excelitas.com>

**Re: Pet peeve about version numbers of Mathematica***From:*John Fultz <jfultz@wolfram.com>

**Re: Pet peeve about version numbers of Mathematica***From:*Murray Eisenberg <murray@math.umass.edu>