On 13/02/2014 20:25, Trane Francks wrote: > On 2/13/14 9:08 AM +0900, MCBastos wrote: >> Interviewed by CNN on 12/02/2014 20:33, Trane Francks told the world: >> >>> There's also no reason whatsoever that minor and patch-level releases >>> cannot (or even should not) be padded to the number of expected places, >>> e.g., 2.08.03. That keeps the versions obvious and the sorting simple to >>> read. >> >> That assumes that, when creating the *first* release of a product, >> people know how many sub-releases are there going to be sometime in the >> future. >> > Well, as somebody who has written a fair amount of software over the > last few decades, how about making room for a number of releases? ROTFL > > Seriously. This is NOT rocket science. Having a release sequence unable > to sort in a directory is positively LAME.
Arguably the failure is in your sorting algorithm rather than in the release sequence. Phil -- Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.c...@gmail.com> http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
