Re: Hopefully final version of ~ version number policy
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <email@example.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Here's a new version of the Policy patch for ~ in version numbers that
>> hopefully incorporates all of the suggestions.
> You will hate me for this one :-)
Oh, it's fine. We haven't worked out how best to pull my stuff into the
central arch repository yet anyway (mostly because I haven't asked), so
none of it is pulled up yet.
>> @@ -2713,7 +2713,15 @@
>> which may be empty) are compared lexically. If a difference
>> is found it is returned. The lexical comparison is a
>> comparison of ASCII values modified so that all the letters
>> - sort earlier than all the non-letters.
>> + sort earlier than all the non-letters and so that a tilde
>> + sorts before anything, even the end of a part. For example,
>> + the following parts are in sorted order: <tt>~~</tt>,
>> + <tt>~~a</tt>, <tt>~</tt>, the empty part,
> So, is the greatest version number at the beginning or at the end of
> that sorted list? Yes, this is clear from context, but IMO an example
> should be more explicit.
How about if I make that "in sorted order from earliest to latest"?
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>