On 2/14/14 1:54 PM +0900, Philip Chee wrote:
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
Hi, Phil.
Certainly, this does not incriminate SeaMonkey. Human's can easily
decipher the difference between v2.8 vs. v2.08. Every contemporary file
system/operating system will, however, return a sort that indicates the
two are not the same.
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks tr...@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
