Re: common issue with version_compare()

On 22/07/12 04:08, Kris Craig wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Andrew Faulds <ajfweb@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> If you think 1.1 =/= 1.01 you're sure using some weird version numbers. >> Only 1.0.1 would be smaller. >> >> Has anyone seen these weird version ordering schemes in practise? On any >> major projects of note? >> >> > *raises his hand* > > 1.01 and 1.0.1 are essentially the same thing. No, it is not. > If a versioning model doesn't utilize the second dot (many don't), then 1.01 would be > the same as > 1.0.1 in a project that does use it. It's the first time I hear about a project writing 1.0.1 as 1.01 > The Gitflow model reserves that last digit for hotfixes. However, many > developers (including myself) drop the second dot as it's pretty much > superfluous. Maybe that's an American thing, I dunno. But having 1.1 == > 1.01 would cause this function to be completely and utterly *worthless *for > many developers like myself. It doesn't matter that you bump the minor or revision number, it's up to each project what should increase on a change of X severity. It would still work flawlesslly as far as you do it consistently. If you release 1.0.1, 1.02, 1.0.3 and expect it to order that way, it will fail. And I guess that so would many developers too.