Cable Forum - View Single Post - Software version numbering -- a proposition

spiderplant · 12-05-2004, 10:43

Nice idea, Tristan. The problem is that you could be fighting against the "official" ntl naming, and confusion may arise whenever ntl peeps post. So for example, the code currently being rolled out on Langley is known as 3.1 within ntl; and "3.2 Langley" and "3.2 Bromley" are already terms well used and understood within ntl, even though they are not functionally equivalent.

Because of all the confusion regarding multiple names, we introduced the ntl-mega-uber-name a year or so ago. For example "3_1_P12N_P_P4001_R_" (that DeKurver has) tells me it is 3.1 production build, 12th iteration, non-diagnostic build, built by Pace, running on a Pace 4001 run-from-RAM STB. The trailing underscore is actually a separator - the last component is only present on engineering builds, to identify the purpose of the build.

12-05-2004, 10:43	#10
spiderplant cf.mega poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 9,022	Re: Software version numbering -- a proposition Nice idea, Tristan. The problem is that you could be fighting against the "official" ntl naming, and confusion may arise whenever ntl peeps post. So for example, the code currently being rolled out on Langley is known as 3.1 within ntl; and "3.2 Langley" and "3.2 Bromley" are already terms well used and understood within ntl, even though they are not functionally equivalent. Because of all the confusion regarding multiple names, we introduced the ntl-mega-uber-name a year or so ago. For example "3_1_P12N_P_P4001_R_" (that DeKurver has) tells me it is 3.1 production build, 12th iteration, non-diagnostic build, built by Pace, running on a Pace 4001 run-from-RAM STB. The trailing underscore is actually a separator - the last component is only present on engineering builds, to identify the purpose of the build.