Re: Version Numbering

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Version Numbering
Date: 2010-08-20 21:40:02
Message-ID: 1A67540A-CE42-4EE8-8A2A-832606FFF7A2@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Aug 20, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> 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.

That's what Semantic versions do. From the spec's #3:

> A special version number MAY be denoted by appending an arbitrary string immediately following the patch version. The string MUST be comprised of only alphanumerics plus dash [0-9A-Za-z-] and MUST begin with an alpha character [A-Za-z]. Special versions satisfy but have a lower precedence than the associated normal version. Precedence SHOULD be determined by lexicographic ASCII sort order. For instance: 1.0.0beta1 < 1.0.0beta2 < 1.0.0.

I'm comfortable with this because it's consistent with what people expect when they read a version number.

Best,

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2010-08-20 21:41:20 Re: Version Numbering
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-08-20 21:39:09 Re: git: uh-oh