On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 07:28:13AM -0800, Matt Kraai wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:00:30PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > > Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (21/11/2005): > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 04:08:03PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > > > > In a few months, the DSAs will have four digits. With the current > > > > sorting method (lexically), we will have the following sorting scheme: > > > > dsa-1000 dsa-1001 dsa-998 dsa-999 > > > > Can somebody confirm that there is no problem if I apply the attached > > > > patch? (it sorts numerically instead of lexically). > > > > > > In my quick testing, > > > > > > "dsa-1001" <=> "dsa-999" > > > > > > returns 0, not 1. Doesn't this cause your patch to break? > > > > Indeed, it does not give at all the expected results (I don't know > > exactly why I got what I wanted the first time I tried). > > Please have a look at the attached patch, it seems to work better but > > it is a little bit hackish. > > It's OK with me if it works, though I'd guess one of the Perl experts > could come up with a more elegant solution.
I talked to Thomas on IRC, and our conclusion was that this patch does its job without breaking other usage of get_recent_list. We tried to find a better one without success. So it should indeed be committed, and other people can afterwards rewrite it if they want. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
