About 6 months ago I covered the impending release of 10.4.9. I made the assumption that it would be the last update to 10.4 and that Leopard would be soon to follow… (As long as no one tells my wife, I’ll admit to being wrong on those 2 points – but nothing more!) A rather lengthy discussion grew in the comments about the versioning conventions being used. Looks like some of those folks may turn out to be right.
Ars points out that it appears the next update to 10.4 may be in the works with the delay of Leopard. Further, it looks as if the 10.4.10 version number may be applied when it drops.
Advertisement
good nwes sir
if I remember correctly, system 7.5.3 had a revision a ;)
OK…so how’s about 10.4.9a?
An easy way to convince yourself that it’s not a decimal: Why would there be two of them?
thanks for clearing that up… :)
it’s NOT DECIMAL !
. is NOT a separator for decimal.
it”s JUST a separator between MAJOR number version, MINOR number version, REVISION number version, REVISION OF REVISION number version and so on
developpers can do EVERYTHING they want !
for exemple, linux is 2.6.22. who dares to the contrary ?
the X protocol is X11R7 (11th number of the X protocol ,release 7 )
so,, apple can do 10.4.10. it would be logical after the 9 revision of the 4th version of their 10th operating system.
10 because… it’s the TENTH revision !!!
but
apple could also do 10.4.9release34build250450edition423svn2007-05-14 and noone could prevent that.
do not forget os x 10.4.9 is in fact build 8P2137
How would 10.4.91 follow 10.4.9?
What part of 10.4.10 is the logical succesor to 10.4.9 is complicated?
Wouldn’t it be 10.4.9x? (x) being any number 1-9?