Software version numbering -- a proposition

Tristan · 12-05-2004, 00:07

There are currently four different software versions in use on NTL's cable networks, an upgrade planned for the next few months, and a possible merger with Telewest on the cards, and people are understandably getting a bit confused about what's what in terms of the version numbers. So I thought I'd take the initiative and try and come up with a consistant, easy to understand(ish) and expandable version numbering system that people on the boards can use.

I can't work out how to do a table in vBulletin I'm afraid, so I'll just create a list. Without further ado:

Old name: v5.33/v5.34/v5.35, Langley CR2
Proposed new name: L2.9
Looks like: this

Old name: Langley CR3
Prop. name: L3.2
Looks like: this

Old name: Bromley CR1, London Videotron areas
Prop. name: B1.5
Looks like: this

Old name: Bromley CR3+MR1
Prop. name: B3.1
Looks like: this

Old name: Bromley CR3+MR2
Prop. name: B3.2
Looks like: ??? (L3.2?)

Old name: Telewest UI3
Prop. name: T3.2
Looks like: this

The idea is to be consistant, in terms of the level of software each of the three networks is at, hence 'Langley CR3' jumping straight to version number L3.2. I've also tried to make is as backwardly compatible as possible, at least for Bromley and Telewest versions (this is the reason for Videotron areas are numbered B1.5: their version of 'CR1' differs from the B1.0 version originally issued by CWC). It's more difficult to do this for past Langley versions, so I haven't tried: hopefully the issuing of L2.9 to the v5.33 software it self-explainitory.

I have no idea whether this will take off or not, but it seemed like a good idea to me. I know the numbers aren't exactly catch, but they do make sense, and it should make things much easier for newcomers. I await your comments, suggestions and criticisms!

12-05-2004, 00:16

Like it mate. It would make discussion easier if it gets accepted by the majority. If it does get accepted then the mods should make it a permanent non-replyable post sticky in the relevant ntl and Telewest forums for newbies to read.

Neil · 12-05-2004, 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proppinupthebar

Like it mate. It would make discussion easier if it gets accepted by the majority. If it does get accepted then the mods should make it a permanent non-replyable post sticky in the relevant ntl and Telewest forums for newbies to read.

Thread Stuck.

DeKurver · 12-05-2004, 00:58

It seems sensible to me and, if nothing else, it provides a very useful reference for understanding what the different versions are and, importantly, what they look like. I think the only issue might be that L3.2 and B3.2 (when it's released) will be virtually identical, whereas T3.2 will have some differences and this might cause a little confusion since the version numbers are the same. Personally I don't think it will be a problem and all 3.x versions currently share the same Liberate version, so it's useful to group them together.

Out of curiosity, my STB reports its EPG version as iEPG 4.0 b45. Presumably this number is somehow independant of the CR number used by ntl: (otherwise it would be 3.0 b45 wouldn't it?), so I wonder how consistent these numbers are across the different platforms.

12-05-2004, 01:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeKurver

It seems sensible to me and, if nothing else, it provides a very useful reference for understanding what the different versions are and, importantly, what they look like. I think the only issue might be that L3.2 and B3.2 (when it's released) will be virtually identical, whereas T3.2 will have some differences and this might cause a little confusion since the version numbers are the same. Personally I don't think it will be a problem and all 3.x versions currently share the same Liberate version, so it's useful to group them together.

Out of curiosity, my STB reports its EPG version as iEPG 4.0 b45. Presumably this number is somehow independant of the CR number used by ntl: (otherwise it would be 3.0 b45 wouldn't it?), so I wonder how consistent these numbers are across the different platforms.

Each version of software for a box contains bits from more than one company, there are references to each bit. Also there are different versions of hardware available across each platform, each requiring variations in a common function, but ultimately different code and hence numbered differently.

Tristan · 12-05-2004, 01:15

The iEPG version is distinct from the actual software build version, just to confuse you. For B3.1, the software version reported by the STB is something like Pn.3.1.P0.CR3 (where n=1, 2 or 3 according to your hardware), but the iEPG is version 1.6.20. I have no idea how it suddenly jumped to 4.0 for the L3.2 release! Do the diagnostic screens give a software build code similar to the above anywhere? It will be on the page with the hardware type, most likely.

DeKurver · 12-05-2004, 01:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan

The iEPG version is distinct from the actual software build version, just to confuse you. For B3.1, the software version reported by the STB is something like Pn.3.1.p.0.CR3 (it's not that exactly, but something similar), but the iEPG is version 1.2. I have no idea how it suddenly jumped to 4.0 for the L3.2 release. Do the diagnostic screens give a software build code similar to the above anywhere?

Yes you're right, there's another version number (SW Version) cunningly hidden on the third page.

Mine reads "3_1_P12N_P_P4001_R_", although the trailing underscore makes me think that there might be even more to it than that. This seems to indicate that we both have 3.1 based software, although presumably you have B3.1 whereas I have L3.2. My iEPG version does seem weird compared to yours; yours seems linked to the Liberate version whereas mine clearly isn't. From what Proppinupthebar said, I guess this is just something that will vary across box types and platforms.

12-05-2004, 01:48

I would ask a mod/admin to make Tristans first post a closed sticky to avoid any confusion as it will be viewable from more than one forum (ntl and Telewest).

Tristan · 12-05-2004, 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proppinupthebar

I would ask a mod/admin to make Tristans first post a closed sticky to avoid any confusion as it will be viewable from more than one forum (ntl and Telewest).

I asked Neil to leave it open for a few days, as I'm keen to hear people's comments and suggestions for improvements. After that, I'll write out the info again (and make it a little easier to follow), so that is can be stickied and locked.

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.

Tristan · 19-05-2004, 00:59

I did wonder what the official NTL version numbering system was, but I figured that if I didn't know, most other forum members probably didn't either

So would you recommend that the Langley software currently rolling out be called L3.1 instead? You're the expert on here when it comes to the STB software, so we'll go with what you suggest.

Oh, and I don't know how much you can say, but I'm very curious about the fact that "3.2 Langley" and "3.2 Bromley", "are not functionally equivalent"... could you explain further?

Thanks

spiderplant · 19-05-2004, 10:29

Yes, call the current Langley rollout L3.1, and we'll know what you mean.

As you'll have noticed, L3.1 is not the same as B3.1 (with hindsight we probably should have called it something different). Bromley now needs to catch up (eg with the blue EPG). So B3.2 will be similar to L3.1.

Tristan · 26-05-2004, 03:22

Apologies for taking so long over this. Work commitments have meant I have had little time for the boards over the past couple of weeks.

Anyway, I have now completed the final version, which you can see at:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=12840

I would be grateful if I mod could "unsticky" this thread, and lock and sticky the new one.

It's pretty much the same, except that "Langley CR3" has been designated L3.1, on the advice of Spiderplant. I have also not included a code for Telewest. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly, their entire network runs the same software, and so it is less necessary, and having it here could confuse people. Secondly, I would prefer it to reflect the internal TW numbering, as with NTL, and I present I don't know this!

Please can I ask everybody to try and make an effort to use the new codes -- it will make things a lot easier in the long run it we do.

Thanks all,

Tristan

O2 X1 · 27-05-2004, 14:23

I don't think the new codes will catch on, just typing this now I have forgot all those codes! And if members saw those codes in the thread they would get confused as they normally use the names CR3 etc. I can remember these:

CR1 - Ex-Videotron (Bromley)
CR2 - Langley (old version)
CR3 - Ex-cwc (Bromley)
LCR3 - Langley (new version)

DeKurver · 27-05-2004, 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by O2 X1

I don't think the new codes will catch on, just typing this now I have forgot all those codes! And if members saw those codes in the thread they would get confused as they normally use the names CR3 etc. I can remember these:

CR1 - Ex-Videotron (Bromley)
CR2 - Langley (old version)
CR3 - Ex-cwc (Bromley)
LCR3 - Langley (new version)

I think they're pretty easy to remember, especially when you start talking about CR3+MR1 or CR3+MR2. What will the next Langley upgrade be called, LCR3+MR1? The other advantage is that the 3.x numbering ties in with the software version number reported by the STB, so it should be easier for people to confirm what version they have. Maybe Tristan's skicky post could be modified to include the instructions for viewing your STB software's full version number?

It's unfortunate that, AFAICT, B3.2 will be virtually identical to L3.1, so it might be an idea for ntl: to harmonise the version numbers across both platforms if they are going to have UI and feature parity (apart from channel numbers). For example, they might skip L3.2 and go straight to L3.3 so that L3.3 and B3.3 maintain the same functionality. It might be possible to then drop the L/B prefix altogether.