> 1.0.0 and 1.0 are different things.
I think the problem is, version numbers are different things to different
people - I guess the documentation maybe isn't clear enough on precisely
what version numbering scheme it's using. To most people, "1" and "1.0" are
the same thing, because they look like decimal-numbers to Americans. The
documentation doesn't state how leading zeroes or missing numbers are
treated in comparisons.
I just submitted a comment with a small script that runs version_compare()
on a list of version numbers -
1 lt 1.0
1.0 eq 1.00
1.00 lt 1.01
1.01 eq 1.1
1.1 lt 1.10
1.10 gt 1.10b
1.10b lt 1.10.0
I was a bit surprised at some of these, but they make sense now that I can
see how the version-number interpretation works...
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com>wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >> For example, I was not the only one who found it odd that "1.0" is
> >> considered less than "1.0.0" - wouldn't it make sense to "pad" the
> shortest
> >> version-number with zeroes? e.g. "1.0" if compared against "1.0.0"
> would be
> >> padded with zeroes at the end, e.g. as "1.0.0".
>
> 1.0.0 and 1.0 are different things. If you want to make a comparison
> that takes into account only two components, you can just cut them both
> to two components, then compare.
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> (408)454-6900 ext. 227
>
