Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Warning: Tree raster can hang you

["Tuomas J. Lukka" <lukka@xxxxxx>]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 06:09:11AM +0300, Tuomas J. Lukka wrote:
> > But there's a standards problem: some people have used
> > 
> > 	0.1
> > 	0.2
> > 	0.3
> > ...
> > 	0.9
> > 	0.10
> > 	0.11
> > 
> > and other use them as numbers; 0.11 is between 0.1 and 0.2.
> > It's common enough to make me want to avoid it.
> 
> True.  Nevertheless, in my own programs I've used the first scheme with
> no problems.

> > > (Think of 0.10 being newer than 0.9.)
> > 
> > Yuck. NEVER.
> 
> What's the problem (beyond the above)?  You just need to consider the
> version number as consisting of period-separated natural number fields.

The confusion for the users. Even alphabetic ordering goes against
this scheme. you'll find lots of users downloading 0.9 even though you're
up to 0.13.

> This is, for example, the version scheme imposed by dpkg on packages
> (except that dpkg uses alphanumeric fields).
> 
> > > > 0.0.1: I dislike non-floating-point versions.
> > > 
> > > And I dislike floating-point versions :-)
> > 
> > For what reason?
> 
> I'll quote you: "yuck".  It's a personal preference.

Any realistic reason?

Also, there's the semantics: what's 0.1.0 supposed to mean? A big
step forwards?

After 1.0 this scheme would have its uses as the patchlevel thingy,
I have to admit..

> > > > Any reason in particular to use those?
> > > 
> > > It's just that it's more standard.  (At least where I come from.)
> > 
> > 0.01 is pretty much standard on CPAN.
> 
> Perl (including the stuff on CPAN) is about the only one using this
> style, AFAIK.

And unfortunately Perl is moving away from it, too...

All right, I'm willing to go with the Linux kernel -established standard.

	Tuomas