We need a new version numbering scheme
xixsimplicityxix at gmail.com
Fri Feb 16 09:43:44 CST 2007
Ack in my previous message I was speaking of 99 minor versions not
revisions, sorry for the typo!
On 2/16/07, John Smith <xixsimplicityxix at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always making
> the minor version field double digit would do the trick?
> 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...
More information about the wine-devel