Announcing.... The LabVIEW 2013 Platform Beta Program

[crossrulz]

---

@Phil_ wrote:

It has 2013 written all over it...

So, LV2012 SP1 = Developer Suite 2013 DS1?

---

Yep.  Confusing enough for you?

[Phil_]

That's rubbish!

Bug fixes are no fun, I got all excited at the prospect of new toys to play with.

[Darin.K]

---

@Phil_ wrote:

That's rubbish!

Bug fixes are no fun, I got all excited at the prospect of new toys to play with.

---

My own experience is that LVn SP1 > LVn+1 for all versions released so far.

Also, seriously, has there ever been a year where the DVD label question has not been asked.  Phil_ is far from the first, and will not be the last.

[Danny_Funk]

Hello all,

The versioning on the Developer Suite discs has been a source of confusion. The Developer Suite packages multiple products that do not all have the same version, so the Developer Suite is not intended to directly mirror the LabVIEW versioning scheme. We do understand that this is an area of continued confusion, and we are always considering better ways to avoid confusion.

[JKSH]

---

@Danny_F wrote:

The Developer Suite packages multiple products that do not all have the same version, so the Developer Suite is not intended to directly mirror the LabVIEW versioning scheme. We do understand that this is an area of continued confusion, and we are always considering better ways to avoid confusion.

---

This is kind of like Intel calling its CPUs "Core 2 Solo" 😛

Is there a way for users to contribute to the process of "considering better ways to avoid confusion"? I'm sure there are plenty of willing and capable volunteers.

[LV_Pro]

There was considerably less confusion regarding the LabVIEW version prior to 2009!

[Darin.K]

---

@LV_Pro wrote:

There was considerably less confusion regarding the LabVIEW version prior to 2009!

---

Agreed!

http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/Revert-to-old-LabVIEW-version-naming/idi-p/1047557

[JKSH]

The confusion arises from versioning both the Developer Suite and LabVIEW itself using the 4-digit year, when the version numbers aren't in sync.

So far, the suggestions I've seen are:

1. Sync the numbers (e.g. change the release schedule)
2. Change the LabVIEW versioning scheme (e.g. revert to the old scheme)

(1) is terribly disruptive and doesn't account for the multitude of NI products with different version numbers.

(2) could work.

A 3rd option: Change the Developer Suite versioning scheme. We could add the month to the DS (e.g. "Developer Suite Mar. 2013"), or copy Ubuntu's versioning: "Developer Suite 13.03". Users probably care more about the LV version number than the DS version number, so LV should get the "cleaner" number.

[kmcdevitt]

There is only one possible solution to the versioning problem that makes sense. Move NI Week 6 months. Forwards or backwards, no difference. This brings NI week to February, and brings the new version of LabVIEW to coincide with the Developer Suite DVD shipment DS1. DS2 would ship in August.

So, for example, NI Week in Feb 2015. LabVIEW 2015 announced then and shipped also in the February Developer Suite 2015 DS1. LabVIEW 2015 SP1 in the Developer Suite 2015 DS2 shipped 6 months later in August 2015.

[JKSH]

---

@kmcdevitt wrote:
There is only one possible solution to the versioning problem that makes sense. Move NI Week 6 months. Forwards or backwards, no difference. This brings NI week to February, and brings the new version of LabVIEW to coincide with the Developer Suite DVD shipment DS1. DS2 would ship in August.

---

That's what I meant in Option #1 in the post above yours. However, it's very disruptive, and doesn't take into account the fact that there are other products on the disk -- they might not have the same year-number as LabVIEW.

What do you think of Options #2 and #3?