hi, No, I mean version with 1.0 and not 1.0.0 are not. They are just not correct and confusing, as you noticed.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Andrew Faulds <ajf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > What? x, x.y, x.y.z, x.y.z.a, etc are all valid. > 1, 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.2.3, in that order, would be valid. > > On Jul 21, 2012 10:07 AM, "Pierre Joye" <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> hi! >> >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Rasmus Schultz <ras...@mindplay.dk> >> wrote: >> >> > Of course that would break backwards compatibility, which kind of >> > defeats >> > the purpose of having a standardized version-number comparison standard. >> >> x.y.z is standard, x.y not. I keep asking package maintainers to use >> x.y.z as version and not x.y. >> >> Cheers, >> -- >> Pierre >> >> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> > -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
