flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
flat assembler > Main > fasmg version numbering

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 6252
Location: Kraków, Poland
fasmg version numbering
I have decided to use a new version numbering scheme for fasmg, to make sure that its version numbers would not be confused with fasm 1.x.

First I had an idea that I could use the "g" as a major version number, so it would be "g.x" (just like fasm2 would be fasm with version "2.x"). As for what comes after the dot, I was quite happy with using the timestamp (this was a nod to the fact that fasm 1 packages used to be updated more often than the core version number changed and that the date of packaging used to be the only reliable indicator of the update) but these long numbers were a bit clumsy and hard to compare. But then I thought: well, if I make a bold move to make the major version a letter, then why not let the whole version number use letters too? So I switched to base 36 and divided the timestamp by 50, to get a relatively short sequence of letters that is a number in base 36 and can still be easily compared to know which of the versions is later.

The first release I made under this scheme has a version number "g.hl3r1".
Post 19 Oct 2016, 19:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ender



Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 11
Location: London, UK
Why, for the frak's sake, 50?!

_________________
&r
Post 19 Oct 2016, 20:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
l_inc



Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 868

Quote:
Why, for the frak's sake, 50?!


Probably the least number of seconds ever elapsed between two successive versions of fasm. Smile

_________________
Faith is a superposition of knowledge and fallacy
Post 19 Oct 2016, 23:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
idle



Joined: 06 Jan 2011
Posts: 338
Location: ukraina
confusing, imho
Post 20 Oct 2016, 07:07
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 6252
Location: Kraków, Poland

l_inc wrote:

Quote:
Why, for the frak's sake, 50?!


Probably the least number of seconds ever elapsed between two successive versions of fasm. Smile

This is actually a good point. Wink

But in truth, I just experimented with a few values and selected the first one that looked OK to me. I wanted no more than five characters, but with still enough precision to increase when fixes are applied just a couple of minutes later.

Now that I think about it more, I find that I could invent some "reasons" why 50 is a good choice (or at least an "OK" one). The range of the last two digits is 36*36*50 seconds, which is a rough approximation of 2^16 (but it is also just an exact 18 hours). Therefore the first three digits/characters represent more or less the high word of timestamp, and the other two - the low one. Only the first three digits are usually going to matter, but the additional two may make any particular number more recognizable.
Post 20 Oct 2016, 09:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 14585
Location: Planet Dirt
Re: fasmg version numbering

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
... version numbering ..."g.hl3r1".

Although base-36 is a valid numbering system, not many people would consider it a "number". Version string feels a bit more realistic IMO.
Post 20 Oct 2016, 13:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 6252
Location: Kraków, Poland
Re: fasmg version numbering

revolution wrote:
Although base-36 is a valid numbering system, not many people would consider it a "number". Version string feels a bit more realistic IMO.

Yes, you are right, especially since I don't consider the "g" in place of major version a number. It is just a character "g" there.
Post 20 Oct 2016, 13:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2005 phpBB Group.

Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2016, Tomasz Grysztar.