whimsical versioning system in .NET?

[giddy]

hi ,

Could someone please educate me about the versioning system in .NET.

Correct me if i'm wrong , the version is composed of 4 Int32 numbers :
major.minor.build.revision. And if i do this [assembly:
AssemblyVersion("1.0.*")] :

Then the build number is the number of days since Jan 1 2000?? =S and
the revision is the number of seconds since midnight localtime divided
by 2.

Why cant the build just increment by 1 everytime i BUILD? and Revision
change according to changes in the source?!

[pvdg42]

"giddy" <gi*******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...

hi ,

Could someone please educate me about the versioning system in .NET.

Correct me if i'm wrong , the version is composed of 4 Int32 numbers :
major.minor.build.revision. And if i do this [assembly:
AssemblyVersion("1.0.*")] :

Then the build number is the number of days since Jan 1 2000?? =S and
the revision is the number of seconds since midnight localtime divided
by 2.

Why cant the build just increment by 1 everytime i BUILD? and Revision
change according to changes in the source?!

Probably because there are many builds, which still must be tracked by the
project team, which never see the light of day outside of Microsoft.
Rather than creating an artificial "build number" for the builds released to
us users, they simply go with whatever their version control system
generates.

[giddy]

Probably because there are many builds, which still must be tracked by the
project team, which never see the light of day outside of Microsoft.
Rather than creating an artificial "build number" for the builds released to
us users, they simply go with whatever their version control system
generates.

I'm really sorry but i dont get what your saying =S

What does this have to do with microsoft and the current system
imposes an "artifical" build number.
It says Build.Revision which should mean well. . .Build and Revision ,
and not some odd capricious number.

Gideon

[JR]

It does not "impose", it offers a default, which you need not accept unless
you like it. As you obviously do not, do not.

JR

"giddy" <gi*******@gmail.com???
??????:11*********************@j27g2000cwj.googleg roups.com...

>

>Probably because there are many builds, which still must be tracked by
the
project team, which never see the light of day outside of Microsoft.
Rather than creating an artificial "build number" for the builds released
to
us users, they simply go with whatever their version control system
generates.

I'm really sorry but i dont get what your saying =S

What does this have to do with microsoft and the current system
imposes an "artifical" build number.
It says Build.Revision which should mean well. . .Build and Revision ,
and not some odd capricious number.

Gideon

[giddy]

By deafult you mean just have the version 1.0.0.0 right ? and
increment it manually?

What i mean by "impose" is , if i allow VS to do the versioning then
it imposes this odd versioning.

All i'm saying is It would be useful if there was an option to just
have normal( +1) increments for build and revision.

Or is it there an option like that , that exists??? =S

Gideon