1. James Blight's Avatar
    Does anyone understand what factors are considered when advancing OS release numbers?

    I mean, if you have a release number like 10.3.0.100.

    What prompts it being changed to 10.3.0.200? What prompts increasing the "0" to "1"? I.e. 10.3.0.200 becoming 10.3.1.100?

    Is there method to this or is it somewhat arbitrary?

    I realize that the further to the left the number is, the more sweeping the change / advances seem to be, but I don't understand how big a change has to be to prompt a change in the numbers.

    Not sure why the SR # and OS # are different either. Anyone have an understanding of this?

    Posted via CB 10 on my Z30 (STA100-5) w 10.3.1.1016
    11-02-14 03:22 PM
  2. BigBadWulf's Avatar
    There's no absolute, and it's different viewing OS from our perspective, vs internal. Basically, if an OS has new features, that warrants a leap such as 10.3.0 to 10.3.1, or if major changes 10.2 to 10.3. I've never heard any specific parameters from BlackBerry defining when to do what, though I'm sure someone gets paid big bucks to make those decisions. Keep it mind, while we see new features unlocked, as an OS string advances, that doesn't mean they weren't there to begin with. So some OS appear they should jump a version, but don't. Other times it may jump and not seem worthy, then later as functions are unlocked make much more sense.

    As for release vs version number...
    Release defines the combination of radio and applications contained, while application version defines the app mix itself. What gets really confusing, is BlackBerry making hybrids containing more older apps, in a newer OS.
    James Blight likes this.
    11-02-14 03:52 PM
  3. jpvj's Avatar
    You're spot on.

    BlackBerry has a long tradition to make things complicated.

    Users don't care about build numbers for OS and applications. They are working hard to make things easier to use and remove unnecessary complexity but it takes time to change an entire organization.

    When BlackBerry 10 was designed the applications was to be separated from the OS. The goal was to get carrier approval for radio/os and BlackBerry could then update apps independently. Unfortunately carriers still wants to approve both "because they have to support them" (which we all know they don't!)

    BlackBerry is not in a position to dictate like Apple so carrier approval is still a huge break on release cycles.

    Even though 10.2.1 is the latest non-passport release, there are several different builds running depending on what carriers have approved. This is where the different builds are relevant.

    We all could wish for BlackBerry one day could say "this is version 10.3.2 for all users. Next release is 10.3.3. So long!

    Posted via CB10
    BigBadWulf and James Blight like this.
    11-02-14 04:07 PM
  4. crazigee's Avatar
    I find it complicated too. I see no reason why BlackBerry have to make it that way with a OS version and release number that are different.

    Posted using my Z30 via CB10
    11-02-14 05:11 PM
  5. Bluenoser63's Avatar
    You're spot on.

    BlackBerry has a long tradition to make things complicated.

    Posted via CB10
    It's not that complicated. The higher the number the later the release.

    Major.Minor.Sub.build

    I am running Windows 7 Professional.
    It is version 6.1.7601.1

    Major.Minor.Build.Service Pack
    James Blight likes this.
    11-02-14 05:27 PM
  6. BigBadWulf's Avatar
    I find it complicated too. I see no reason why BlackBerry have to make it that way with a OS version and release number that are different.

    Posted using my Z30 via CB10
    Because it makes sense for them internally, and the vast majority of end users have neither a clue, nor care.
    11-02-14 05:28 PM
  7. Chris S Mellor's Avatar
    It's not that complicated. The higher the number the later the release.

    Major.Minor.Sub.build

    I am running Windows 7 Professional.
    It is version 6.1.7601.1

    Major.Minor.Build.Service Pack
    Not always the case with the number being higher, almost always but every time

    Posted via CB10
    11-02-14 05:41 PM
  8. Bluenoser63's Avatar
    Not always the case with the number being higher, almost always but every time

    Posted via CB10
    I would love to see a software company release software with a lower software version being newer.
    11-02-14 06:06 PM
  9. jpvj's Avatar
    It's not that complicated. The higher the number the later the release.

    Major.Minor.Sub.build

    I am running Windows 7 Professional.
    It is version 6.1.7601.1

    Major.Minor.Build.Service Pack
    Then start explaining average Joe about OS version vs app version. Trust me: He doesn't care and that's why Apple only has one number (eg. 7.1.2) and never shares build numbers with the users. BlackBerry could user as well do the same if they had the guts to tell the carriers "that'd how it's going to be".

    BlackBerry really hates the approval process as it also prevents them from posting info about security vulnerabilities until almost all carriers have approved the fixed version. This can take up to approx 12 months.

    Posted via CB10
    BigBadWulf likes this.
    11-02-14 06:21 PM
  10. Chris S Mellor's Avatar
    I would love to see a software company release software with a lower software version being newer.
    Try BlackBerry.

    Posted via CB10
    BigBadWulf likes this.
    11-02-14 06:22 PM
  11. BigBadWulf's Avatar
    I would love to see a software company release software with a lower software version being newer.
    You needn't look far. 10.3.1.1010 has a few files newer than 10.3.1.1016. I suspect the difference is a Carre carrier test build vs internal, but G_d only knows.
    11-02-14 06:24 PM
  12. Raestloz's Avatar
    You needn't look far. 10.3.1.1010 has a few files newer than 10.3.1.1016. I suspect the difference is a Carre carrier test build vs internal, but G_d only knows.
    Newer files does not equal newer build. For example perhaps their "newer files" were buggy so they reverted to the good old files that work better.

    There is no software development company in which lower version number equals newer build unless there's a major screwup. It's simple: you'll run out of numbers very quickly

    Z10 STL100-1/10.2.1.3247
    11-02-14 08:41 PM
  13. BigBadWulf's Avatar
    Newer files does not equal newer build. For example perhaps their "newer files" were buggy so they reverted to the good old files that work better.

    There is no software development company in which lower version number equals newer build unless there's a major screwup. It's simple: you'll run out of numbers very quickly

    Z10 STL100-1/10.2.1.3247
    Some dicey nuance going on there, but yeah, mkay.
    11-02-14 08:53 PM
  14. Bluenoser63's Avatar
    You needn't look far. 10.3.1.1010 has a few files newer than 10.3.1.1016. I suspect the difference is a Carre carrier test build vs internal, but G_d only knows.
    OS Package <> files in the package.

    There are two levels in the OS, The OS version which is made up of all the pieces and the versions of the pieces. Try checking every DLL version in Windows system32 directory and try tracking them.

    And you guys are looking at leaks/etc. Just look at the gold releases. Each new gold release for the OS increases. It doesn't matter what versions of the pieces are included. The average JOE wouldn't be able to see them or care. All they see is major.minor.sub same as iOS and Android.
    11-02-14 09:02 PM
  15. Raestloz's Avatar
    Some dicey nuance going on there, but yeah, mkay.
    Something tells me you have never developed a software package before

    Z10 STL100-1/10.2.1.3247
    11-02-14 09:40 PM
  16. BigBadWulf's Avatar
    Something tells me you have never developed a software package before

    Z10 STL100-1/10.2.1.3247
    You're absolutely correct! I do however have a lot of experience messing with BlackBerry OS. It's not just leaks, where older files are assembled into a "newer" OS.

    This all is going way beyond the original question, and Microsoft was not the topic. I've no doubt y'all could teach me a lot. Let's try not to make a confusing discussion way more confusing, LoL.
    11-02-14 10:19 PM
  17. Raestloz's Avatar
    Yeah well I was trying to explain why newer files does not necessarily equal newer build. The discussion was about software numbering, not about the modification date of the files contained within.

    Because in the IT world, there is a nightmare word: "rollback"

    Z10 STL100-1/10.2.1.3247
    Bluenoser63 likes this.
    11-03-14 01:51 AM
  18. jpvj's Avatar
    Yeah well I was trying to explain why newer files does not necessarily equal newer build. The discussion was about software numbering, not about the modification date of the files contained within.

    Because in the IT world, there is a nightmare word: "rollback"

    Z10 STL100-1/10.2.1.3247
    Rollbacks are not THAT bad - as long as you can do it. It's much worse if the data attached to the system also have been upgraded and rollback is not an option.
    11-03-14 02:26 AM
  19. Raestloz's Avatar
    Rollbacks are not THAT bad - as long as you can do it. It's much worse if the data attached to the system also have been upgraded and rollback is not an option.
    The rollback itself is not the problem. The problem is whatever it is that caused the rollback to be necessary in the first place. If you need to rollback, the screwup is major indeed

    In this context, I was saying that maybe the newer files are buggy so they have to roll back to previous version of those files

    Z10 STL100-1/10.2.1.3247
    11-03-14 03:00 AM
  20. Bluenoser63's Avatar
    Yeah well I was trying to explain why newer files does not necessarily equal newer build. The discussion was about software numbering, not about the modification date of the files contained within.

    Because in the IT world, there is a nightmare word: "rollback"

    Z10 STL100-1/10.2.1.3247
    Yup. I have been writing software for 30 years. I have had to roll back sometimes. The change doesn't need to be major screwup.
    11-03-14 07:39 AM
  21. jpvj's Avatar
    The rollback itself is not the problem. The problem is whatever it is that caused the rollback to be necessary in the first place. If you need to rollback, the screwup is major indeed

    In this context, I was saying that maybe the newer files are buggy so they have to roll back to previous version of those files

    Z10 STL100-1/10.2.1.3247
    Agree.
    11-03-14 08:08 AM
  22. BigBadWulf's Avatar
    Yeah well I was trying to explain why newer files does not necessarily equal newer build. The discussion was about software numbering, not about the modification date of the files contained within.

    Because in the IT world, there is a nightmare word: "rollback"

    Z10 STL100-1/10.2.1.3247
    I think we're all saying the same thing, I'm just using Wulfanese and y'all are using technical jargon.
    11-03-14 09:30 AM

Similar Threads

  1. Is the Passport reducing your tablet usage?
    By AsianStorm in forum BlackBerry Passport
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 02-17-16, 06:26 AM
  2. Is it a bug or Video Calling for iOS in tests?
    By Radu BARAC in forum General BBM Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-14, 04:52 PM
  3. Z10 keyboard os 10.3.0.675 issues
    By Ferrari430Spider in forum BlackBerry Z10
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-02-14, 04:31 PM
  4. Why is my Torch so slow?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-02-14, 03:58 PM
  5. Q is turned off
    By Hasan Shannak in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-02-14, 03:23 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD