Hi, There are many many ways to format a version number. The developers looked at various options and decided upon an even/odd number scheme for releases and development versions. The agreed upon compromise is discussed here: http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/ReleaseNumbers It's not perfect, but what numbering scheme is? This will do for Wireshark for now.
Thanx, Jaap Andrew Hood wrote: > Jaap Keuter wrote: >> Hi, >> >> So isn't it time now to 'correct' the development release number from 1.0.99 >> to 1.1.0? > > I've never liked this sort of version numbers since string comparisons > don't sort them correctly. > > Consider GTK's: > > #define GTK_CHECK_VERSION(major,minor,micro) \ > (GTK_MAJOR_VERSION > (major) || \ > (GTK_MAJOR_VERSION == (major) && GTK_MINOR_VERSION > (minor)) || \ > (GTK_MAJOR_VERSION == (major) && GTK_MINOR_VERSION == (minor) && \ > GTK_MICRO_VERSION >= (micro))) > #if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,4,10) > > and Motif's: > > #define XmVersion (XmVERSION * 1000 + XmREVISION) > #if XmVersion>2003 > > all caused by pseudo numeric version numbers. > > 1.0.99 would logically be followed by 1.0.100, but "1.0.99" > "1.0.100" > > Can we start from now at "1.01.000"? A hundred point releases each with > a thousand patch levels should be enough for anyone. (With apologies to > Bill Gates.) > > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
