On Friday, 4 January 2013 at 20:48:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, January 04, 2013 21:10:32 Rob T wrote:
On Friday, 4 January 2013 at 19:59:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> Really? Why on earth would you think that 2.062 was greater
> than 2.062.1?
I was asking for clarity so that no one can possibly get
confused.
If you look at the download page, the .0 is missing on some of
the packages, but shows up as a -0 on some of the others, and
that is simply confusing and totally unnecessary. If it is
necessary for some reason, then it needs to be explained.
> Also, I believe that it's very common with Linux packages
> (and
> probably the
> projects themselves) to do that sort of versioning where
> there's never a .0
> and the last part only gets added when you actually get a .1.
There's no law that states that we must follow old conventions.
True, but you also shouldn't do something different just to do
something
different. You need a good reason.
I think that it's pretty ugly to have 2.062.0, and in my
experience, that's a
very abnormal thing to do. You have 2.062 followed by 2.062.1
if you ever have
any point releases, but you don't start with .0. I don't recall
ever seeing
that before.
And the fact that with have -0 on the latest release on the
download page is
downright bizarre too. I don't think that I've ever seen -0
before either. I'd
expect you to add the -1 if you ever need one but not start
with -0. And
actually, looking at my Linux box now, it looks like Arch
starts with -1, not
-0. I don't know what other distros do.
Regardless, I'm not at all in favor of having .0 on any
release. Only add
the minor versions to releases which are minor versions, not to
the major
ones.
- Jonathan M Davis
I don't think anybody really care if this start with 0 or 1. What
is weird is that you'll find 2 numbers versions and 3 numbers
one, which is confusing (and I never saw that in any software).
