Why the "Rx" versions in Releases?

What is the logic in the use of "Rx" numbers (R1, R2, R3) in addition to version numbers?

I was curious because these numbers are very confusing. Instead of "v.01 R2" and "v.01 R3", why not "v.102", etc.

Thanks.

 

i'm not sure to the specific release you mean, but perhaps it's because R2 isn't actually a new update, but rather a recompiled version of the R1, where R1 had an error which was fixed when they recompiled it...

There is probably a version road map, and it's probably easier for the company to just add an R1 or 2 to the file than anything else...

the other option would be to go 1.02.02 but that would be more confusing yet... they could also go 1.02a or 1.02b

 

The [short] version of my copy shows "1.0.1.013 (v1.0.1, Copyright © 2005 Native Instruments)" while the Library version is "1.0.1 R3", the IRC version is "1.0.33" and the DFD version is "1.30". That's four different components, each with it's own version number: NI had to pick up a single name for the package, and it happens it's the library version number...

 

Hi all,

in general, we use the format 1.0.1 meaning fist version of the product, no major update, first service update. the About screen also shows the three digits of the current build.

if we do a re-release with changes only in the installer or the library, we do not increment the software version (no changes!). thus we used R1 etc. - we could as well use "a" etc.

we need the other versions as well because main application, sound library, DFD extension, and convolution extension are all seaprate files that can change independently of each other.


best,
Markus