Re: Version Numbering

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Version Numbering
Date: 2010-08-20 21:10:09
Message-ID: 27404.1282338609@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, I for one will fiercely resist adopting any such standard, because
>> it's directly opposite to the way that RPM will sort such version numbers.

> Which is how?

9.0.0 is less than 9.0.0anything. Unless you wire some specific
knowledge of semantics of particular letter-strings into the comparison
algorithm, it's difficult to come to another decision, IMO.

BTW, 9.0.0 is also less than 9.0.0.anything ... so sticking another dot
in there wouldn't help.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2010-08-20 21:17:39 Re: Version Numbering
Previous Message Aidan Van Dyk 2010-08-20 20:57:25 Re: git: uh-oh