Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:51:19 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru> Subject: Re: Ports with version numbers going backwards: devel/ode Message-ID: <612EE128-C923-11D8-9FE1-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040628155354.GA21457@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Montag den, 28. Juni 2004, um 17:53, schrieb Erik Trulsson: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 05:25:16PM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: >> Sergey Matveychuk wrote: >> >>> I meant we can treat leading zeros as decreasing factor. >>> So, x.001 < x.002 < x.01 < x.02 < x.1 < x.2 < x.10 < x.20 >>> In other words - zeros never can dropped except there are only zeros >>> in >>> the number i.e. X = X.0 = X.00 = X.000 etc. >>> >>> We can look on a version number part with leading zeros as on a number >>> with an implicit dot: 001 -> 0.01, 02 -> 0.2 etc. So comparing will >>> not >>> be a problem. >> >> As far as I understand your proposal this will give us >> >> 0.005 < 0.05 < 0.039 < 0.050 < 0.5 < 0.39 < 0.50 < 0.390 < 0.500 > > I understand his proposal rather as giving > > 0.005 < 0.039 < 0.05 = 0.050 < 0.5 < 0.39 < 050 < 0.390 < 0.500 > > I.e. IF (but only if) a part of the version number starts with a zero > the whole is just treated as a decimal number, unlike the current > scheme where we always treat it as two integers separated by a dot (and > leading zeros in a version number part are thus irrelevant currently.) > > I don't know which scheme is best. The current one has the advantage > that it is simple and easy to describe, but it can give surprising > results if you think of the version number as an actual *number*. You shouldn't, or you have to think of "4.6.2" as a `number'...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?612EE128-C923-11D8-9FE1-00039312D914>