06-12-2012, 09:03 PM
Well, this is all in a developer's preference. Most developers increment in very small amounts, and others increment in larger amounts.
For example, Firefox has gone from version 3.0.0 to 12.0.0 in a matter of a couple of years.
However, most developers start things off simple.
Your first release is usually something like version 0.1.0 BETA. This release needs to be tested. Everytime you put out a patch or update the software, the version changes accordingly. So if you update it, it turns into 0.1.1 BETA.
Then, once your software is out of the BETA stages and is essentially bug-free, you can say your software is version 1.0 (Which is generally the release build), and as you update simply go from 1.0 to 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, etc. If your update is rather large, you may want to increase the version numbers more so your users have a sense that the patch contains several fixes. For example, 1.0 could go directly to 1.4.3
Hopefully this helps a bit. I have no idea if this is the standard way of doing things, but it's the rubric that I follow.
For example, Firefox has gone from version 3.0.0 to 12.0.0 in a matter of a couple of years.
However, most developers start things off simple.
Your first release is usually something like version 0.1.0 BETA. This release needs to be tested. Everytime you put out a patch or update the software, the version changes accordingly. So if you update it, it turns into 0.1.1 BETA.
Then, once your software is out of the BETA stages and is essentially bug-free, you can say your software is version 1.0 (Which is generally the release build), and as you update simply go from 1.0 to 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, etc. If your update is rather large, you may want to increase the version numbers more so your users have a sense that the patch contains several fixes. For example, 1.0 could go directly to 1.4.3
Hopefully this helps a bit. I have no idea if this is the standard way of doing things, but it's the rubric that I follow.