[BioC] R versions 2.10 : simple error, joke or truly intended ?

[Jenny Drnevich]

Hi Mustapha,

I made the same erroneous conclusion in regards to software version 
numbers. As I was told, they are NOT decimal places, so since 10 > 9, 
R version 2.10 IS > 2.9.  Which part of the version number is 
increased for a new version depends on the amount of change from the 
previous version. There has to be some sort of major change to 
increase the R version to 3.0  (what caused the change from 1.x to 
2.0?), otherwise each 6 month upgrade just increases the second 
number. Likewise, the smaller version changes between the 6 month 
major upgrades get 2.10.0, 2.10.1, 2.10.2, etc.

HTH,
Jenny

At 09:25 AM 12/30/2009, Mustapha A. wrote:
>Hi every body,
>
>I'm just wondering about the current upgrading of R versions.
>Actually, I have the R version 2.9, but the new version (R 2.10) is already
>availaible.
>Theoritically, a new version is usually higher in number than the previous
>one, but in R versions this is not the case ! Since 2.10 (newer version
>edition) is lower than 2.9 (older version) !
>So, is this a simple error or intentionnaly made as is ?
>
>The proof, mathematically speaking:
>2.10/2.9 =  0.74
>2.9/2.10 = 1.38
>                        then => 2.9 is higher than 2.10 !
>
>So, the new version of R should to be R 3.0.0, right ?
>
>Regards
>Mustapha
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
>_______________________________________________
>Bioconductor mailing list
>Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch
>https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor
>Search the archives: 
>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor

Jenny Drnevich, Ph.D.

Functional Genomics Bioinformatics Specialist
W.M. Keck Center for Comparative and Functional Genomics
Roy J. Carver Biotechnology Center
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

330 ERML
1201 W. Gregory Dr.
Urbana, IL 61801
USA

ph: 217-244-7355
fax: 217-265-5066
e-mail: drnevich at illinois.edu