[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Adam Gibson <agibson at ptm dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] 1.21 released
 Date:  Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:49:01 -0500
Manuel Kasper wrote:
> Adam Gibson wrote:
>> I have only come across a few apps(or firewalls :) that are numbered 
>> like that so I am very curious why people combine the 2nd and 3rd 
>> octets in versions.  Are there some IDEs that default to that.  Do 
>> developers just want to keep everyone on their toes?  I guess I have 
>> just been 
> I don't even know why I chose to do it that way... It started with 1.11 
> - somehow I didn't feel that the one small change (a security fix) 
> warranted an additional dot. And since it'd been done that way with 
> 1.11, it was only consistent to do the same with 1.21. I don't think 
> there'll ever be more than 9 revisions for any given minor version, so 
> no problem there. :)

Yea... well never need more than 640k... ;)

Glad to know it is not because of some technical reason.  I had one app 
that I used to create RPMs for and they were numbered the same way so I 
had to manually increase the version number in the rpm spec file because 
I could not depend on being able to parse it automatically.  1.21 would 
be packaged as 1.2.1 .  RPM would not handle things properly when 
comparing 1.11 and 1.2 when 1.2 is greater than 1.11.  Just kinda bugged 
me to see someone use that numbering scheme again in the wild.  Ill get 
over it ;)  Thanks for the reply.