Yeah, that would definitely be a bug. On Jul 21, 2012 7:23 AM, "Kris Craig" <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1.01 eq 1.1 > > Could you explain this one to me? In every versioning system I've ever > used, 1.1 would be greater than 1.01, not equal. > > > 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 > > > >
