In the MacOS and linux universes, such things would be determined by the
LC_COLLATE setting of locale, I think. Windows?
—
Peter West
p...@pbw.id.au
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven.”
> On 9 Mar 2023, at 7:31 pm, Geert Janssens
Op donderdag 9 maart 2023 09:34:36 CET schreef aeg via gnucash-user:
> The fact that 9 is less than 12 is not confusing to me, but sorting by
> Windows File Explorer routinely puts 12 before 9, whereas 09 is always
> correctly arranged before 12 (and before 900). From the
> link,
The fact that 9 is less than 12 is not confusing to me, but sorting by Windows
File Explorer routinely puts 12 before 9, whereas 09 is always correctly
arranged before 12 (and before 900).
From the link, https://semver.org/ provided by LI Daobing, I now understand
that there is a conventional
You will find answer here:
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Release_Schedule
Karel
út 7. 3. 2023 v 10:41 odesílatel aeg via gnucash-user <
gnucash-user@gnucash.org> napsal:
> Is there a reason why GnuCash version numbers don't follow a sequence
> 4.00, 4.01, 4.02, etc. instead of 4.0. 4.1, 4.2?
> I
On 07 March 2023 at 10:36, Maf. King said:
[...]
> Major release 4. Update (bug fix) 1. Update 9.. Update 12.
>
> Update 900 is the "preview" to the next major version (5), and similarly
> 901, 902. etc. follow on in sequence... 100 possible previews should be
> enough!
And if
That was until 3.x
This is covered in the Wiki:
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Release_Process#New_Major.2FMinor_Version
and the release schedule is here:
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Release_Schedule
Regards,
Adrien
On 3/7/23 7:30 PM, LI Daobing wrote:
I thought gnucash is somehow
I thought gnucash is somehow following the semantic version schema.
ref: https://semver.org/
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:51 PM David G. Pickett via gnucash-user <
gnucash-user@gnucash.org> wrote:
> It is, generally a military style numbering, so the '.' is not a decimal
> point, more a tab, not
If these are updates, then perhaps instead of 4.1, 4.2... 4.9, 4.10, 4.11,
it would be better to use "u" ('update') and have 4u1, 4u2,... 4u9, 4u10,
4u11.
I tend to keep up with the updates, and use the latest version, but I can
see it being confusing.
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 9:51 AM David G.
For each set of numbers, they run sequentially, without leading zeros.
9 is less than 12. How is that confusing?
It isn't '90' and '12'
It is '9' and '12'.
Until 3.x, minor odd versions (like 2.7) were used for 'beta' or
'unstable'. That was changed to x.90x. This gives plenty of room for
I we can pop to 900, we can pop to 100.
-Original Message-
From: aeg
To: David G. Pickett
Cc: gnucash-user@gnucash.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 7, 2023 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
David,
I like your idea, as its logical sequencing would obviously be clearer
;
Subject: Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
Message-ID: <78074249.338554.1678204241...@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
It is, generally a military style numbering, so the '.' is not a decimal point,
more a tab, not an alphanumeric sort but a numeric sort
I don't speak for the development team either.
But the sequence x.1, x.2, ... x.9, x.10, x.11 etc seems to be standard
practice in numbering versions. I actually don't like it much. x.01, x.02, ...
x.09, x.10, x.11 would be cleaner and sort correctly but that is not the world
we live in.
It is, generally a military style numbering, so the '.' is not a decimal point,
more a tab, not an alphanumeric sort but a numeric sort. One AT project
started their order numbers at 100,000,000 so they were always 9 digits with
900M headroom. Maybe we could make the first revision after 4 as
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 10:37:18 GMT, Maf. King
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 09:34:59 GMT aeg via gnucash-user wrote:
> Is there a reason why GnuCash version numbers don't follow a sequence 4.00,
> 4.01, 4.02, etc. instead of 4.0. 4.1, 4.2? I find it a little confusing
> that
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 09:34:59 GMT aeg via gnucash-user wrote:
> Is there a reason why GnuCash version numbers don't follow a sequence 4.00,
> 4.01, 4.02, etc. instead of 4.0. 4.1, 4.2? I find it a little confusing
> that 4.9 is older than 4.12, and that 4.902 comes just before 5.0
>
> Alan
>
Is there a reason why GnuCash version numbers don't follow a sequence 4.00,
4.01, 4.02, etc. instead of 4.0. 4.1, 4.2?
I find it a little confusing that 4.9 is older than 4.12, and that 4.902 comes
just before 5.0
Alan
___
gnucash-user mailing list
16 matches
Mail list logo
