Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
In the MacOS and linux universes, such things would be determined by the LC_COLLATE setting of locale, I think. Windows? — Peter West p...@pbw.id.au “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” > On 9 Mar 2023, at 7:31 pm, Geert Janssens wrote: > > Op donderdag 9 maart 2023 09:34:36 CET schreef aeg via gnucash-user: >> The fact that 9 is less than 12 is not confusing to me, but sorting by >> Windows File Explorer routinely puts 12 before 9, whereas 09 is always >> correctly arranged before 12 (and before 900). From the >> link, https://semver.org/ provided by LI Daobing, I now understand that >> there is a conventional way of numbering software releases, but I remain >> puzzled by the insistence that leading zeros must not be used. It is often >> the case that the status quo can be seen to work, but it is my opinion >> that, if an improvement can be made and the effort to do so is minimal, it >> is normally worth making that improvement. I assume that's what drives the >> developers to make evolutionary changes and introduce updates. I'd just >> like to see a numbering system that works in all circumstances. Alan > > Well, it's all context related. > > On my linux desktop files get properly sorted already now with .9 appearing > before .12. > > In fact linux desktop environments have been properly sorting such version > numbers for > years. So I don't even notice this on the PC I use every day. Looks like the > Windows' file > manager does not have that feature (yet) or perhaps it's configurable > somewhere ? > > Regards, > > Geert > ___ > gnucash-user mailing list > gnucash-user@gnucash.org > To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user > - > Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. > You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All. ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
Op donderdag 9 maart 2023 09:34:36 CET schreef aeg via gnucash-user: > The fact that 9 is less than 12 is not confusing to me, but sorting by > Windows File Explorer routinely puts 12 before 9, whereas 09 is always > correctly arranged before 12 (and before 900). From the > link, https://semver.org/ provided by LI Daobing, I now understand that > there is a conventional way of numbering software releases, but I remain > puzzled by the insistence that leading zeros must not be used. It is often > the case that the status quo can be seen to work, but it is my opinion > that, if an improvement can be made and the effort to do so is minimal, it > is normally worth making that improvement. I assume that's what drives the > developers to make evolutionary changes and introduce updates. I'd just > like to see a numbering system that works in all circumstances. Alan Well, it's all context related. On my linux desktop files get properly sorted already now with .9 appearing before .12. In fact linux desktop environments have been properly sorting such version numbers for years. So I don't even notice this on the PC I use every day. Looks like the Windows' file manager does not have that feature (yet) or perhaps it's configurable somewhere ? Regards, Geert ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
The fact that 9 is less than 12 is not confusing to me, but sorting by Windows File Explorer routinely puts 12 before 9, whereas 09 is always correctly arranged before 12 (and before 900). From the link, https://semver.org/ provided by LI Daobing, I now understand that there is a conventional way of numbering software releases, but I remain puzzled by the insistence that leading zeros must not be used. It is often the case that the status quo can be seen to work, but it is my opinion that, if an improvement can be made and the effort to do so is minimal, it is normally worth making that improvement. I assume that's what drives the developers to make evolutionary changes and introduce updates. I'd just like to see a numbering system that works in all circumstances. Alan From: Adrien Monteleone For each set of numbers, they run sequentially, without leading zeros. 9 is less than 12. How is that confusing? It isn't '90' and '12' It is '9' and '12'. ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
You will find answer here: https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Release_Schedule Karel út 7. 3. 2023 v 10:41 odesílatel aeg via gnucash-user < gnucash-user@gnucash.org> napsal: > Is there a reason why GnuCash version numbers don't follow a sequence > 4.00, 4.01, 4.02, etc. instead of 4.0. 4.1, 4.2? > I find it a little confusing that 4.9 is older than 4.12, and that 4.902 > comes just before 5.0 > > Alan > ___ > gnucash-user mailing list > gnucash-user@gnucash.org > To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user > - > Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. > You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All. > ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
On 07 March 2023 at 10:36, Maf. King said: [...] > Major release 4. Update (bug fix) 1. Update 9.. Update 12. > > Update 900 is the "preview" to the next major version (5), and similarly > 901, 902. etc. follow on in sequence... 100 possible previews should be > enough! And if not, there's always 4.1000, 4.1001 ... ;-> ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
That was until 3.x This is covered in the Wiki: https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Release_Process#New_Major.2FMinor_Version and the release schedule is here: https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Release_Schedule Regards, Adrien On 3/7/23 7:30 PM, LI Daobing wrote: I thought gnucash is somehow following the semantic version schema. ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
I thought gnucash is somehow following the semantic version schema. ref: https://semver.org/ On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:51 PM David G. Pickett via gnucash-user < gnucash-user@gnucash.org> wrote: > It is, generally a military style numbering, so the '.' is not a decimal > point, more a tab, not an alphanumeric sort but a numeric sort. One AT&T > project started their order numbers at 100,000,000 so they were always 9 > digits with 900M headroom. Maybe we could make the first revision after 4 > as 4.100, so the field is in both numeric and alpha sort order? > ___ > gnucash-user mailing list > gnucash-user@gnucash.org > To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user > - > Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. > You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All. > -- Best Regards LI Daobing ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
If these are updates, then perhaps instead of 4.1, 4.2... 4.9, 4.10, 4.11,
it would be better to use "u" ('update') and have 4u1, 4u2,... 4u9, 4u10,
4u11.
I tend to keep up with the updates, and use the latest version, but I can
see it being confusing.
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 9:51 AM David G. Pickett via gnucash-user <
gnucash-user@gnucash.org> wrote:
> It is, generally a military style numbering, so the '.' is not a decimal
> point, more a tab, not an alphanumeric sort but a numeric sort. One AT&T
> project started their order numbers at 100,000,000 so they were always 9
> digits with 900M headroom. Maybe we could make the first revision after 4
> as 4.100, so the field is in both numeric and alpha sort order?
> ___
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user@gnucash.org
> To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> -
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>
--
_
Richard Losey
rlo...@gmail.com
Micah 6:8
___
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
-
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
For each set of numbers, they run sequentially, without leading zeros. 9 is less than 12. How is that confusing? It isn't '90' and '12' It is '9' and '12'. Until 3.x, minor odd versions (like 2.7) were used for 'beta' or 'unstable'. That was changed to x.90x. This gives plenty of room for interim minor versions between major versions without stepping over each other. (due to the release schedule, there is little way to get to '900' as a minor release before the next major version) Starting the unstable series at '900' also gives 10 releases if needed before the next major version jump. If the regular release schedule is followed, the most likely outcome is 3-4 unstable releases. There is a wiki page that explains the version numbering, and if I'm not mistaken, the FAQ contains a link to it. Regards, Adrien On 3/7/23 3:34 AM, aeg via gnucash-user wrote: Is there a reason why GnuCash version numbers don't follow a sequence 4.00, 4.01, 4.02, etc. instead of 4.0. 4.1, 4.2? I find it a little confusing that 4.9 is older than 4.12, and that 4.902 comes just before 5.0 ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
I we can pop to 900, we can pop to 100. -Original Message- From: aeg To: David G. Pickett Cc: gnucash-user@gnucash.org Sent: Tue, Mar 7, 2023 3:29 pm Subject: Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers David, I like your idea, as its logical sequencing would obviously be clearer, but as Will pointed out, we are probably stuck with what's already established. Alan Message: 1 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 15:50:41 + (UTC) From: "David G. Pickett" To: "gnucash-user@gnucash.org" Subject: Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers Message-ID: <78074249.338554.1678204241...@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It is, generally a military style numbering, so the '.' is not a decimal point, more a tab, not an alphanumeric sort but a numeric sort.? One AT&T project started their order numbers at 100,000,000 so they were always 9 digits with 900M headroom.? Maybe we could make the first revision after 4 as 4.100, so the field is in both numeric and alpha sort order? ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
David, I like your idea, as its logical sequencing would obviously be clearer, but as Will pointed out, we are probably stuck with what's already established. Alan Message: 1 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 15:50:41 + (UTC) From: "David G. Pickett" To: "gnucash-user@gnucash.org" Subject: Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers Message-ID: <78074249.338554.1678204241...@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It is, generally a military style numbering, so the '.' is not a decimal point, more a tab, not an alphanumeric sort but a numeric sort.? One AT&T project started their order numbers at 100,000,000 so they were always 9 digits with 900M headroom.? Maybe we could make the first revision after 4 as 4.100, so the field is in both numeric and alpha sort order? ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
I don't speak for the development team either. But the sequence x.1, x.2, ... x.9, x.10, x.11 etc seems to be standard practice in numbering versions. I actually don't like it much. x.01, x.02, ... x.09, x.10, x.11 would be cleaner and sort correctly but that is not the world we live in. Will On Mar 7, 2023, at 05:09, aeg via gnucash-user wrote: On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 10:37:18 GMT, Maf. King wrote: On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 09:34:59 GMT aeg via gnucash-user wrote: > Is there a reason why GnuCash version numbers don't follow a sequence 4.00, > 4.01, 4.02, etc. instead of 4.0. 4.1, 4.2? I find it a little confusing > that 4.9 is older than 4.12, and that 4.902 comes just before 5.0 > > Alan > Not wishing to speak for the dev team... but this is how I understand the numbering: 4.1 does _NOT_ have a decimal point in it. perhaps if it were written as 4_1 it would make more logical to you as the . would not be overloaded with another meaning. Major release 4. Update (bug fix) 1. Update 9.. Update 12. Update 900 is the "preview" to the next major version (5), and similarly 901, 902. etc. follow on in sequence... 100 possible previews should be enough! HTH, Maf. Thank you for pointing that out; I've probably been viewing it as a decimal point. Alan ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All. ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
It is, generally a military style numbering, so the '.' is not a decimal point, more a tab, not an alphanumeric sort but a numeric sort. One AT&T project started their order numbers at 100,000,000 so they were always 9 digits with 900M headroom. Maybe we could make the first revision after 4 as 4.100, so the field is in both numeric and alpha sort order? ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 10:37:18 GMT, Maf. King wrote: On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 09:34:59 GMT aeg via gnucash-user wrote: > Is there a reason why GnuCash version numbers don't follow a sequence 4.00, > 4.01, 4.02, etc. instead of 4.0. 4.1, 4.2? I find it a little confusing > that 4.9 is older than 4.12, and that 4.902 comes just before 5.0 > > Alan > Not wishing to speak for the dev team... but this is how I understand the numbering: 4.1 does _NOT_ have a decimal point in it. perhaps if it were written as 4_1 it would make more logical to you as the . would not be overloaded with another meaning. Major release 4. Update (bug fix) 1. Update 9.. Update 12. Update 900 is the "preview" to the next major version (5), and similarly 901, 902. etc. follow on in sequence... 100 possible previews should be enough! HTH, Maf. Thank you for pointing that out; I've probably been viewing it as a decimal point. Alan ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 09:34:59 GMT aeg via gnucash-user wrote: > Is there a reason why GnuCash version numbers don't follow a sequence 4.00, > 4.01, 4.02, etc. instead of 4.0. 4.1, 4.2? I find it a little confusing > that 4.9 is older than 4.12, and that 4.902 comes just before 5.0 > > Alan > Not wishing to speak for the dev team... but this is how I understand the numbering: 4.1 does _NOT_ have a decimal point in it. perhaps if it were written as 4_1 it would make more logical to you as the . would not be overloaded with another meaning. Major release 4. Update (bug fix) 1. Update 9.. Update 12. Update 900 is the "preview" to the next major version (5), and similarly 901, 902. etc. follow on in sequence... 100 possible previews should be enough! HTH, Maf. ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
