[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting |
Date: |
09 Dec 2003 09:00:40 +0900 |
Paul Pelzl <address@hidden> writes:
> Quoting the tutorial:
> "Notice that version numbers are always two positive integers, separated
> by a period. These are sometimes called the major and minor version."
>
> So your versions are violating the Arch namespace convention.
Not if he's using tla 1.1 (pre-foo). The `two component' limit on
version numbers was removed in the 1.1 series (perhaps the tutorial
needs to be updated on this point).
I'm not sure how the sorting is supposed to work -- all my branches only
use a single version (usually just `0'!) -- but the behavior he cites
does seem a bit weird...
-Miles
--
Occam's razor split hairs so well, I bought the whole argument!
- [Gnu-arch-users] possible bug with version number sorting, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2003/12/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] possible bug with version number sorting, Paul Pelzl, 2003/12/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] possible bug with version number sorting, Robert Collins, 2003/12/08
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Stig Brautaset, 2003/12/08
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2003/12/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Tom Lord, 2003/12/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2003/12/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Tom Lord, 2003/12/12
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2003/12/13