The version update notification thing is admittedly a problem, and so it's true we maybe would need to tweak that. Not changing code most certaily wasn't the justification for the naming scheme I proposed (slap me the day I let that be a reason to justify a lame approach).
Alternate proposals, naysayers? On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:49 PM, John Tamplin <j...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote: > >> Senator Blum, >> >> Do you mean "disturbing" as in >> 1) revolting, >> 2) distressing, or >> 3) disordering? >> >> It seems that mathematics has successfully survived similar notational >> issues, such as the whole X vs. X' thing. >> > > I dislike the fact that normal ordering rules do no apply here. For > example, you promoted the fact that version checking code doesn't have to > change, it does -- otherwise, you won't get prompted to upgrade from > 2.0.0-rc1 to 2.0.0. > > I would also prefer 2.0.0-ms1 rather than -m1 for better clarity and > symmetry with -rc1. > > >> Willing to give it a chance? >> > > I don't feel strongly enough to fight hard for something different, but I > would prefer having a straightforward comparison do the right thing. We can > certainly make the comparator understand the particular naming scheme, but > that doesn't do well when/if we decide to change it (as it happens, that > isn't a problem for older versions but it might be for future versions if we > change the scheme). > > -- > John A. Tamplin > Software Engineer (GWT), Google > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
