When I posted my previous comment about versions numbers I had not yet noticed the discussion about it here. But version numbers are a pet peeve of mine so watch out!
I can't suggest strongly enough that whole numbers separated by dots is the cleanest solution available. Version numbers are not floating point numbers. Especially evident when looking at 2.2.18 and 5.6.1 style versions. > | > I'd suggest a two digit minor version number, for example 2.01.2023 > | > rather than 2.1.2023, because then we don't have the stupidity of > | > version 2.2.2023 being older than 2.14.4096 (like Apache does it:). > | > | Um, 2.2.* is older than 2.14.* > > Good catch! I think he meant it the other way : > 2.10 is older than 2.9 Okay, let's try this the hard way. Let's count them out. 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 Gosh, 2.2 _is_ significantly older than 2.14. Who would have guessed? Bob _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
