On 02/04/2024 09:15, Chris wrote:

Just noticed this and it didn't twig previously, but as 12.7 was simply
a bug/security update of not the most current version of macOS why
didn't Apple just increment the point version number of the last feature release (12.6)? This would have been 12.6.10.

Looking back there hasn't been any macOS/OS X version higher that x.x.9
since Tiger 10.4.11. Is it possible that there's a versioning issue that macOS only expects a single digit and so the security release was called
12.7 to avoid a bug.

I know it's a daft question, but it got me curious. Anyone know?

I suggest you email Howard Oakley and ask him.

h [dot] oakley [at] btconnect [dot] com.

I'm curious as to why you now care about Version 12

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

Just noticed this and it didn't twig previously, but as 12.7 was simply
a bug/security update of not the most current version of macOS why
didn't Apple just increment the point version number of the last feature release (12.6)? This would have been 12.6.10.

Looking back there hasn't been any macOS/OS X version higher that x.x.9
since Tiger 10.4.11. Is it possible that there's a versioning issue that macOS only expects a single digit and so the security release was called
12.7 to avoid a bug.

I know it's a daft question, but it got me curious. Anyone know?

Perhaps Apple seemed the security updates so significant they decided to
number the release 12.7?

<https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT213932>

Of course there may have been some other major but non security changes
they have not divulged perhaps preparing the ground for macOS 13? Anyway I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it ;-)

No doubt a conspiracy theorist will have another opinion!

--
Cheers, Alan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Alan B <[email protected]d> wrote:

Of course there may have been some other major but non security changes
they have not divulged perhaps preparing the ground for macOS 13? Anyway I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it ;-)

It could also be something that makes Monterey more forward-compatible, eg updating to a newer protocol for iCloud or similar, or fixing bugs in the protocol. At some later date Apple could retire the old support and say you need to be on at least 12.7 to use iCloud.

<all speculation>

Theo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/04/2024 08:12, Chris wrote:

Alan B <[email protected]d> wrote:

Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

Just noticed this and it didn't twig previously, but as 12.7 was simply
a bug/security update of not the most current version of macOS why
didn't Apple just increment the point version number of the last feature >>> release (12.6)? This would have been 12.6.10.

Looking back there hasn't been any macOS/OS X version higher that x.x.9
since Tiger 10.4.11. Is it possible that there's a versioning issue that >>> macOS only expects a single digit and so the security release was called >>> 12.7 to avoid a bug.

I know it's a daft question, but it got me curious. Anyone know?

Perhaps Apple seemed the security updates so significant they decided to
number the release 12.7?

<https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT213932>

Of course there may have been some other major but non security changes
they have not divulged perhaps preparing the ground for macOS 13?

That's the thing 13 was already out. 12.7 was released at the same time as 13.6 and this release was only days before 14 was launched.

Theo's idea that it might be some fundamental change for a future support cutoff might be close to the money.

Anyway I
wouldn’t lose any sleep over it ;-)

Yeah, just one of those curious things.

No doubt a conspiracy theorist will have another opinion!

And if you look further back you see that they did exactly the same with
macOS Big Sur 11.7 in September 2022.

D

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)