On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Kobus Jaroslaw jaroslaw.ko...@digia.com
wrote:
Hi All,
With the current state of QVersion (patchset 35) I see the following
issues:
1. operator() doesn't take the suffix into account (mentioned below)
2. There is no handling of sub version (you cannot
___
From: Keith Gardner [kreios4...@gmail.com]
Sent: 11 July 2014 14:34
To: Kobus Jaroslaw
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Adding support for version number comparisons
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Kobus Jaroslaw
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com
wrote:
Em sex 09 maio 2014, às 11:36:08, Keith Gardner escreveu:
I have been working on adding a class to QtCore (QVersion) to support
storing version numbers, convert to/from QString, and having comparison
On Monday 02 June 2014 13:24:55 Richard Moore wrote:
On 2 June 2014 13:12, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com
wrote:
I suggest a name that is more centric towards the _function_ of the
class,
comparison of
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com wrote:
On Monday 02 June 2014 13:24:55 Richard Moore wrote:
On 2 June 2014 13:12, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Simon Hausmann
simon.hausm...@digia.com
wrote:
I suggest
On Thursday 10 July 2014 07:53:29 Keith Gardner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com wrote:
On Monday 02 June 2014 13:24:55 Richard Moore wrote:
On 2 June 2014 13:12, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Simon
-bounces+jaroslaw.kobus=digia@qt-project.org
[development-bounces+jaroslaw.kobus=digia@qt-project.org] on behalf of
Keith Gardner [kreios4...@gmail.com]
Sent: 10 July 2014 14:21
To: Thiago Macieira
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Adding support for version number
-project.org
[development-bounces+jaroslaw.kobus=digia@qt-project.org] on behalf of
Keith Gardner [kreios4...@gmail.com]
Sent: 10 July 2014 14:53
To: Olivier Goffart
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Adding support for version number comparisons
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:31
On Thursday 10 July 2014 07:53:29 Keith Gardner wrote:
Currently, the QVersion::compare has an overload to pass a functor that
performs the suffix comparison. Are you suggesting having a default in
the operators that can be overwritten?
No global state, please.
--
Thiago Macieira -
On Saturday 31. May 2014 15.02.49 Keith Gardner wrote:
[...]
And then you'd use: QVersion::compare(a, b, myCompare);
Big +1 to everything. This approach should serve everyones' use cases;
let's get this integration rolling.
I can agree to that. I will have an update this weekend
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com
wrote:
On Saturday 31. May 2014 15.02.49 Keith Gardner wrote:
[...]
And then you'd use: QVersion::compare(a, b, myCompare);
Big +1 to everything. This approach should serve everyones' use cases;
let's get
On 2014-06-02, at 08:12 AM, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com
wrote:
On Saturday 31. May 2014 15.02.49 Keith Gardner wrote:
[...]
And then you'd use: QVersion::compare(a, b, myCompare);
Big +1 to
On 2 June 2014 13:12, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com
wrote:
I suggest a name that is more centric towards the _function_ of the class,
comparison of different software versions.
QVersionInformation was
On Monday 2. June 2014 13.24.55 Richard Moore wrote:
On 2 June 2014 13:12, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com
wrote:
I suggest a name that is more centric towards the _function_ of the
class,
comparison of
On 2014-06-02, at 08:24 AM, Richard Moore r...@kde.org wrote:
On 2 June 2014 13:12, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com
wrote:
I suggest a name that is more centric towards the _function_ of the class,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Jake Petroules jake.petrou...@petroules.com
wrote:
On 2014-06-02, at 08:24 AM, Richard Moore r...@kde.org wrote:
On 2 June 2014 13:12, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@digia.com
wrote:
Em sex 09 maio 2014, às 11:36:08, Keith Gardner escreveu:
I have been working on adding a class to QtCore (QVersion) to support
storing version numbers, convert to/from QString, and having comparison
operators. My goal was to provide an API to assist in the following use
cases:
- Plugin
On 2014-05-31, at 03:00 PM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
Em sex 09 maio 2014, às 11:36:08, Keith Gardner escreveu:
I have been working on adding a class to QtCore (QVersion) to support
storing version numbers, convert to/from QString, and having comparison
operators. My
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Jake Petroules
jake.petrou...@petroules.com wrote:
On 2014-05-31, at 03:00 PM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com
wrote:
Em sex 09 maio 2014, às 11:36:08, Keith Gardner escreveu:
I have been working on adding a class to QtCore (QVersion) to support
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:31:52PM -0500, Keith Gardner wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
oswald.buddenha...@digia.com wrote:
my point is that this class is becoming unreasonably complex for a
rather trivial thing, which only a fraction of the applications will
1. Numerical groupings should be compared integers instead of
characters
in order to properly allow for alpha2 alpha11.
2. Delimiters should only be used to denote groups of content but be
skipped during the compare. alpha == -alpha == ~alpha ==
.alpha
1. Can be
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 07:41:20 you wrote:
At this moment, the 'v' is optional and if present, will be ignored.
Try to ignore the specificness of that. The only point I was making is this:
Version number schemes change over time in a way you can't predict.
Thanks,
--
Join us at Qt
Well, if you use a virtual, you'd simply subclass to handle the specific
format for your project.
I haven't thought about using inheritance to simplify the compare but I
think that would provide the best compromise. What are your thoughts about
comparing a QVersion to a QSpecializedVersion or
Keith Gardner schreef op 14-5-2014 15:45:
Well, if you use a virtual, you'd simply subclass to handle the
specific format for your project.
I haven't thought about using inheritance to simplify the compare but
I think that would provide the best compromise. What are your
thoughts
Em qua 14 maio 2014, às 08:45:28, Keith Gardner escreveu:
Well, if you use a virtual, you'd simply subclass to handle the specific
format for your project.
I haven't thought about using inheritance to simplify the compare but I
think that would provide the best compromise.
I don't want
On 2014-05-14, at 04:26 PM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
Em qua 14 maio 2014, às 08:45:28, Keith Gardner escreveu:
Well, if you use a virtual, you'd simply subclass to handle the specific
format for your project.
I haven't thought about using inheritance to simplify the
Em qua 14 maio 2014, às 14:12:40, Stephen Kelly escreveu:
Note also that version number schemes for particular software are not
constant over time.
https://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2009/09/03/qt-4th-edition-feature-pack-7/
That was a joke! Tongue in cheek with how Symbian/S60 named its
Em qua 14 maio 2014, às 13:36:30, Thiago Macieira escreveu:
QSysInfo::osVersion() will return Windows 8 but
QSysInfo::osKernelRelease() will return 6.2.9200.
BTW, on Linux:
$ qtdiag | head -2
Qt 5.3.1 (x86_64-little_endian-lp64 shared (dynamic) debug build; by GCC 4.8.1
20130909
Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 11:58:15, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:25:34PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Em seg 12 maio 2014, às 12:27:46, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
any a-priori transformations needed to make it actually work with random
versioning schemes are
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 07:43:18AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 11:58:15, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
what is the added value of hard-coding arbitrary policies (and
thereby restricting possible use cases) instead of providing a
minimalistic solution (or two, one
Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 17:47:59, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 07:43:18AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 11:58:15, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
what is the added value of hard-coding arbitrary policies (and
thereby restricting possible use
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 08:51:09AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 17:47:59, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
the analogy is entirely bogus. the thresholds for usefulness and the
user's ability to manipulate the input into something the qt code can
work with are entirely
Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 18:26:32, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 08:51:09AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 17:47:59, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
the analogy is entirely bogus. the thresholds for usefulness and the
user's ability to manipulate
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 09:38:03AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 18:26:32, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
the user has complete control over the input of qversion, and can apply
any transformations which his use case may require. also, the effort
would be quite trivial
but then there is also the semantical perspective. keith's last proposal
i saw considered only numerical segments specially.
Did you intend to say suffix? What I wrote on May 11th spoke specifically
to the suffix compare:
From what I have found, there are some key words that can be used to
Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 19:13:56, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
If you think the QVersion constructor should be strict, I won't disagree.
Then we should have a QVersion::fromUserInput, like the QUrl version,
which is lax and has heuristics.
that would work from an api perspective.
but
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:59:10PM -0500, Keith Gardner wrote:
but then there is also the semantical perspective. keith's last proposal
i saw considered only numerical segments specially.
Did you intend to say suffix? What I wrote on May 11th spoke specifically
to the suffix compare:
i
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
oswald.buddenha...@digia.com wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:59:10PM -0500, Keith Gardner wrote:
but then there is also the semantical perspective. keith's last
proposal
i saw considered only numerical segments specially.
Did you
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 03:39:51PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Em sáb 10 maio 2014, às 22:04:26, Sune Vuorela escreveu:
On 2014-05-10, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
How do you make 5.3.0-rc1 compare less than 5.3.0?
we call them 5.3.0~rc1.
And how does 5.3.0~rc1
- Plugin loading where there are multiple versions on the same
system.
- File format validation.
- Executing an already installed command line application where the
behavior is dependent on the called application's version.
- Performing software installations and
Em seg 12 maio 2014, às 12:27:46, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
- Plugin loading where there are multiple versions on the same
system.
- File format validation.
- Executing an already installed command line application where the
behavior is dependent on the called
On 11 May 2014 02:16, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Usually more condensed than the pre-release.
2. Some projects experience multiple releases with the same version
of software (1.0.0-2).
3. Libjpeg and OpenSSL use a single letter to represent a level of
1. Usually more condensed than the pre-release.
2. Some projects experience multiple releases with the same version
of software (1.0.0-2).
3. Libjpeg and OpenSSL use a single letter to represent a level of
security for some software (1.0.0g).
openssl actually use a
On 2014-05-09, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
2. What semantics should be used for version comparisons? Numerical
segments are more clearly defined but when introducing a non-null suffix,
many different methods are being proposed.
3. Are there any other versioning
Em sáb 10 maio 2014, às 14:26:44, Sune Vuorela escreveu:
On 2014-05-09, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
2. What semantics should be used for version comparisons? Numerical
segments are more clearly defined but when introducing a non-null
suffix,
many different
On 2014-05-10, at 01:57 PM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
Em sáb 10 maio 2014, às 14:26:44, Sune Vuorela escreveu:
On 2014-05-09, Keith Gardner kreios4...@gmail.com wrote:
2. What semantics should be used for version comparisons? Numerical
segments are more clearly
Em sáb 10 maio 2014, às 14:03:10, Jake Petroules escreveu:
With all the debate, I'm beginning to think that having distinct formats
available to conform to might not be such a bad idea after all (SemVer,
RpmVer, Dpkg, Freeform, etc...).
So how do you mean 1.0.0b compare greater than 1.0.0?
On 2014-05-10, at 02:11 PM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
Em sáb 10 maio 2014, às 14:03:10, Jake Petroules escreveu:
With all the debate, I'm beginning to think that having distinct formats
available to conform to might not be such a bad idea after all (SemVer,
RpmVer,
Let's not make it that complicated. If the suffix is one character, assume
that it stands for a released version. If the suffix is greater than one
character, assume it references a pre-released version. With this rule,
comparisons will work properly. 1.0.0beta 1.0.0 1.0.0b.
On Sat, May 10,
Il 10/05/2014 21:20, Keith Gardner ha scritto:
Let's not make it that complicated.
I think it IS complicated; there are several established (and sometimes
documented) conventions. Supporting a random one is just going to annoy
people used to any other.
My 2 cents,
--
Join us Oct 6-8 at BCC
And what about 1.0.0b2? Wouldn't you expect that to be greater than 1.0.0b? The
problem with trying to implement one comparison algorithm is that there are so
many different versioning formats in use (at least, within the suffix part)
that it's nearly impossible to do something that works
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jake Petroules
jake.petrou...@petroules.com wrote:
And what about 1.0.0b2? Wouldn't you expect that to be greater than
1.0.0b? The problem with trying to implement one comparison algorithm is
that there are so many different versioning formats in use (at
On 2014-05-10, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
How do you make 5.3.0-rc1 compare less than 5.3.0?
we call them 5.3.0~rc1.
/Sune
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
Em sáb 10 maio 2014, às 22:04:26, Sune Vuorela escreveu:
On 2014-05-10, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
How do you make 5.3.0-rc1 compare less than 5.3.0?
we call them 5.3.0~rc1.
And how does 5.3.0~rc1 compare less than 5.3.0?
Anyway, you can't change the version string.
Em sáb 10 maio 2014, às 15:28:03, Jake Petroules escreveu:
And what about 1.0.0b2? Wouldn't you expect that to be greater than 1.0.0b?
The problem with trying to implement one comparison algorithm is that there
are so many different versioning formats in use (at least, within the
suffix part)
Anyway, given that this is going to be complex, I propose we make up our
own
list and *document* it.
I think that to come up with our own list, we need to identify the tree
different types of suffixes that we are talking about: pre-release, null,
and release. The null suffix is obvious,
Greetings,
I have been working on adding a class to QtCore (QVersion) to support
storing version numbers, convert to/from QString, and having comparison
operators. My goal was to provide an API to assist in the following use
cases:
- Plugin loading where there are multiple versions on the
57 matches
Mail list logo
