We need a new version numbering scheme

[John Smith]

Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always making
the minor version field double digit  would do the trick?

0.9.03
0.9.09
0.9.10
...
0.9.30
etc

this would fix the sorting problems that arise from going from single to
double digit names in most programs too. As long as the major and minor
fields always have the same number of digits it will sort correctly even
with alphanumeric names.  Of course they would have to update the older
versions to double digits but that isn't impossible.

Of course if you break 99 minor revisions you'd run into the problem again
but I think 99 minor revisions is a lot harder to over run than 9. Plus,
maybe if we have 99 minor versions it would be time for an increase in the
major version number =)

I'd be willing to implement this for a summer of code project.

Just kidding. =) Hopefully I'll come up with something more exciting that
you guys will like.

Just a thought,
John Klehm

On 2/16/07, Andrew Talbot <Andrew.Talbot at talbotville.com> wrote:
>
> Scott Ritchie wrote:
>
> > On several occasions I have received emails referring to Wine version
> > 0.9.3.  One person even told me about a regression from 0.9.28 to 0.9.3.
> >
> > Presumably, this version is being confused with Wine 0.9.30 in these
> > letters, however I have been unable to tell whether people were ACTUALLY
> > using 0.9.3 or were instead simply referring to 0.9.30 in the intuitive
> > way of chopping off the last 0.
> >
> > Either way, version numbers should be completely clear, and they're not
> > currently.  I'm not quite sure what to do at this point.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Scott Ritchie
>
> The problem arises when version control programs sort the release "tags"
> alphanumerically, presenting them in the following order, since the digits
> are just treated as members of an extended alphabet, not as real numbers.
>
> Wine-0_9
> Wine-0_9_1
> Wine-0_9_10
> ...
> Wine-0_9_19
> Wine-0_9_2
> Wine-0_9_20
> ...
> Wine-0_9_29
> Wine-0_9_3
> Wine-0_9_30
>
> I think it's probably only a trap for people who download from a source
> repository - and it is not a problem peculiar to Wine. Packaged versions
> are unlikely to be presented in this bizarre order.
>
> -- Andy.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20070216/54e6195b/attachment.htm