On 31/01/2021 11:21, Geert Stappers wrote: > > Besides not pretty, it is also not readable. > Plus '-k 1.6,1.6' looks very odd in that line. > > | sort -k1.2,1.5r -k1.6,1.7r -k1.8,1.9r -k1.10,1.11r > looks more "having a pattern"
But it's wrong. The -k1.6,1.6 sorts on the first letter _after_ the version number, so it sorts v2.65 before v2.65rc1 before v.265test1, because <nothing> sorts before 'r' which sorts before 't' > > > Frankly I think we are repairing at the wrong place. > Instead of handcrafting a sort algoritme, we should repair our > versioning name convention. Tilde to the rescue :-) Fixing the sort happens in one place, adapting my brain to a new convention is less certain, and leaves a break in the record of versions. I just committed another tweak, to get eg v2.65test1 and v2.65test11 in the correct order. Cheers, Simon. _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
