🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael (shotgun@slip.net) wrote:
 
> WHAT? Are you telling me that 1.25 is newer then 1.9? How in the H E
> double hockey sticks does that work out to be correct?
> 
> If this is the case then there are more people doing the version numbers
> wrong then are doing it right.
> 
> "Any company or programmer that knows anything about software production
> realizes that if double digits are to be used to right of the decimal
> point (and should be), then they must remain consistent through-out.  So
> any product that has version 1.25 must use either version 1.09 or 1.90 to
> avoid confusion".
> 
> "If a company or programmer is stupid enough to have inconsistently used
> both a single digit and a double digit to the right of the decimal point,
> then in this example, v1.9 would be considered v1.90 and thus newer than
> v1.25".
> 
> 
> Michael (shotgun@slip.net)
> 

You are still thinking in decimal fractions, the abbreviated version number
is TWO seperate numbers seperated by a period.

Following the above examples

Version 1, Revision 9 is written as 1.9
Version 1, Revision 25 is written as 1.25
Version 1, Revision 90 is written as 1.90

This is the method CATS suggested as been easiest to test for by
software which needs to know which version it is working with. As in,
"I need version 9 do I check for 9 or 09 or 009 .... ?" :)

Other systems are used RCS for example uses 3 numbers separated by
period 1.2.3 etc.

Sug
--
Peter Suggitt <peter@apsayton.demon.co.uk> | Suggitt's Quality Ices
                                           |      Great  Ayton
  Warped A4000 -- "Multimedia by design"   |    North  Yorkshire