2007/7/29, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > X was "eXperimental" and is before 1.0
For me, it a release is pre, alpha, beta, rc, whatever, there is a digit after the suffix. I mean, there is no 1.0pre, there is 1.0pre1. But if there is 1.0pre, a maintainer should add "1" himself. It's simple. > > 3.4_a is newer because 4_a > 4. > > These are the same version. I just renamed the tarball. It's not fair. Why would you do that? > > > 7 and 7_f > > Same here, 7_f > 7. > > You're correct here, but the proof is silly. 7_f comes before 7 > because 7_f is greater than 7? The 'f' stands for 'final' and it is > the final release of version 7. Have you ever seen a software versioned that way? I treat the underscore here as a secondary separator. It's like 7 and 7.f. This IS a rule. > The point I am trying to > make is that the person versioning the software is no you. You don't > decide how the order goes. I don't either. No one does except the > individual releasing the software. That means, no one can be sure. I never said that. And if it's really as hard as you say, why bother, just drop vercmp completely. -- Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.archlinux.org | www.juvepoland.com _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
