On several occasions I have received emails referring to Wine version 0.9.3. One person even told me about a regression from 0.9.28 to 0.9.3. Presumably, this version is being confused with Wine 0.9.30 in these letters, however I have been unable to tell whether people were ACTUALLY using 0.9.3 or were instead simply referring to 0.9.30 in the intuitive way of chopping off the last 0. Either way, version numbers should be completely clear, and they're not currently. I'm not quite sure what to do at this point. Thanks, Scott Ritchie
Friday February 16 2007 05:53、Scott Ritchie さんは書きました:
On several occasions I have received emails referring to Wine version 0.9.3. One person even told me about a regression from 0.9.28 to 0.9.3.
Presumably, this version is being confused with Wine 0.9.30 in these letters, however I have been unable to tell whether people were ACTUALLY using 0.9.3 or were instead simply referring to 0.9.30 in the intuitive way of chopping off the last 0.
Either way, version numbers should be completely clear, and they're not currently. I'm not quite sure what to do at this point.
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
I think there is no problem. Most people do understand that 0.9.30 and 0.9.3 different things. Chopping off the last 0 isn't intuitive at all. This is the same as replacing amount of something with value of 10 times smaller: 3 apples instead of 30 for example! So my opinion that there is no problem at all. This is mostly problem of some people that don't understand simple things. I think it is very clear that if we have "0" in version number then it is important. And also - it actually have very intuitive meaning! BTW, 90% of versions doesn't contain zeros in the version number.
mr. Scott, I am a wine user for long time - I understand from start that actual system is not a decimal system - but a numbering one - so for me the difference between 0.9.3. and 0.9.30 is the difference between 3 and 30. If I presume correct, instead of changing numbering system - maybe is better to explain this system to users - somewhere on first page - first paragraph - on Wine HQ - and on Synaptic ( or other package managers where Details appear ). At least, it's true - the position of the last point on right can make this confusion - this point make the difference - so here is to be explained ( 0.9.3. < 0.9.30. ; 03.9.3.1 < 0.9.30.1 ...etc ). SorinN 2007/2/16, Scott Ritchie <scott(a)open-vote.org>:
On several occasions I have received emails referring to Wine version 0.9.3. One person even told me about a regression from 0.9.28 to 0.9.3.
Presumably, this version is being confused with Wine 0.9.30 in these letters, however I have been unable to tell whether people were ACTUALLY using 0.9.3 or were instead simply referring to 0.9.30 in the intuitive way of chopping off the last 0.
Either way, version numbers should be completely clear, and they're not currently. I'm not quite sure what to do at this point.
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
-- Nemes Ioan Sorin
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:48 +0200, SorinN wrote:
If I presume correct, instead of changing numbering system - maybe is better to explain this system to users - somewhere on first page - first paragraph - on Wine HQ - and on Synaptic ( or other package managers where Details appear ).
If we have to teach them, something is not obvious. And that's the source of the confusion - better to avoid it entirely. Thanks, Scott Ritchie
"Scott Ritchie" <scott(a)open-vote.org> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:48 +0200, SorinN wrote:
If I presume correct, instead of changing numbering system - maybe is better to explain this system to users - somewhere on first page - first paragraph - on Wine HQ - and on Synaptic ( or other package managers where Details appear ).
If we have to teach them, something is not obvious. And that's the source of the confusion - better to avoid it entirely.
I'd say that if you have to explain something then something is wrong. How many open source projects versioning schemes do you know? Wine is using what is commonly accepted, we don't invent something new. -- Dmitry.
Scott Ritchie wrote:
On several occasions I have received emails referring to Wine version 0.9.3. One person even told me about a regression from 0.9.28 to 0.9.3.
Presumably, this version is being confused with Wine 0.9.30 in these letters, however I have been unable to tell whether people were ACTUALLY using 0.9.3 or were instead simply referring to 0.9.30 in the intuitive way of chopping off the last 0.
Either way, version numbers should be completely clear, and they're not currently. I'm not quite sure what to do at this point.
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
The problem arises when version control programs sort the release "tags" alphanumerically, presenting them in the following order, since the digits are just treated as members of an extended alphabet, not as real numbers. Wine-0_9 Wine-0_9_1 Wine-0_9_10 ... Wine-0_9_19 Wine-0_9_2 Wine-0_9_20 ... Wine-0_9_29 Wine-0_9_3 Wine-0_9_30 I think it's probably only a trap for people who download from a source repository - and it is not a problem peculiar to Wine. Packaged versions are unlikely to be presented in this bizarre order. -- Andy.
Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always making the minor version field double digit would do the trick? 0.9.03 0.9.09 0.9.10 ... 0.9.30 etc this would fix the sorting problems that arise from going from single to double digit names in most programs too. As long as the major and minor fields always have the same number of digits it will sort correctly even with alphanumeric names. Of course they would have to update the older versions to double digits but that isn't impossible. Of course if you break 99 minor revisions you'd run into the problem again but I think 99 minor revisions is a lot harder to over run than 9. Plus, maybe if we have 99 minor versions it would be time for an increase in the major version number =) I'd be willing to implement this for a summer of code project. Just kidding. =) Hopefully I'll come up with something more exciting that you guys will like. Just a thought, John Klehm On 2/16/07, Andrew Talbot <Andrew.Talbot(a)talbotville.com> wrote:
Scott Ritchie wrote:
On several occasions I have received emails referring to Wine version 0.9.3. One person even told me about a regression from 0.9.28 to 0.9.3.
Presumably, this version is being confused with Wine 0.9.30 in these letters, however I have been unable to tell whether people were ACTUALLY using 0.9.3 or were instead simply referring to 0.9.30 in the intuitive way of chopping off the last 0.
Either way, version numbers should be completely clear, and they're not currently. I'm not quite sure what to do at this point.
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
The problem arises when version control programs sort the release "tags" alphanumerically, presenting them in the following order, since the digits are just treated as members of an extended alphabet, not as real numbers.
Wine-0_9 Wine-0_9_1 Wine-0_9_10 ... Wine-0_9_19 Wine-0_9_2 Wine-0_9_20 ... Wine-0_9_29 Wine-0_9_3 Wine-0_9_30
I think it's probably only a trap for people who download from a source repository - and it is not a problem peculiar to Wine. Packaged versions are unlikely to be presented in this bizarre order.
-- Andy.
Ack in my previous message I was speaking of 99 minor versions not revisions, sorry for the typo! John On 2/16/07, John Smith <xixsimplicityxix(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always making the minor version field double digit would do the trick?
0.9.03 0.9.09 0.9.10 ... 0.9.30 etc
this would fix the sorting problems that arise from going from single to double digit names in most programs too. As long as the major and minor fields always have the same number of digits it will sort correctly even with alphanumeric names. Of course they would have to update the older versions to double digits but that isn't impossible.
Of course if you break 99 minor revisions you'd run into the problem again but I think 99 minor revisions is a lot harder to over run than 9. Plus, maybe if we have 99 minor versions it would be time for an increase in the major version number =)
I'd be willing to implement this for a summer of code project.
Just kidding. =) Hopefully I'll come up with something more exciting that you guys will like.
Just a thought, John Klehm
On 2/16/07, Andrew Talbot <Andrew.Talbot(a)talbotville.com> wrote:
Scott Ritchie wrote:
On several occasions I have received emails referring to Wine version 0.9.3. One person even told me about a regression from 0.9.28 to 0.9.3.
Presumably, this version is being confused with Wine 0.9.30 in these letters, however I have been unable to tell whether people were ACTUALLY using 0.9.3 or were instead simply referring to 0.9.30 in the intuitive way of chopping off the last 0.
Either way, version numbers should be completely clear, and they're not currently. I'm not quite sure what to do at this point.
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
The problem arises when version control programs sort the release "tags"
alphanumerically, presenting them in the following order, since the digits are just treated as members of an extended alphabet, not as real numbers.
Wine-0_9 Wine-0_9_1 Wine-0_9_10 ... Wine-0_9_19 Wine-0_9_2 Wine-0_9_20 ... Wine-0_9_29 Wine-0_9_3 Wine-0_9_30
I think it's probably only a trap for people who download from a source repository - and it is not a problem peculiar to Wine. Packaged versions
are unlikely to be presented in this bizarre order.
-- Andy.
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:40 -0600, John Smith wrote:
Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always making the minor version field double digit would do the trick?
How about we make the next version Wine 0.9.99.01? Or how about we make the next version 1.0 ;) Thanks, Scott Ritchie
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:53:51AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:40 -0600, John Smith wrote:
Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always making the minor version field double digit would do the trick?
How about we make the next version Wine 0.9.99.01?
Or how about we make the next version 1.0 ;)
I think 0.9.31 will have removed this confusion again. Ciao, Marcus
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 20:13 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:53:51AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:40 -0600, John Smith wrote:
Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always making the minor version field double digit would do the trick?
How about we make the next version Wine 0.9.99.01?
Or how about we make the next version 1.0 ;)
I think 0.9.31 will have removed this confusion again.
Ciao, Marcus
Except maybe that 0.9.4 might be thought of as higher than 0.9.31 Thanks, Scott Ritchie
90 percent of statistics don't contain a 0 either! Whoops... Jokes aside, I was answering some wine related question on Ubuntuforums.org and came across this, many light users tend to do it. I even thought of it that way when I first learned about the common linux versioning system. I don't think there is anything we can do about it but educate users. And correct them when they do this, maybe on the main download info page for repos and such say outright it's important. Thinks like that. Maybe on some kind of getting support page or the future wine help talk about how it's important. even after 1.0 we'll be hitting this again too unless you do major revisions and reworking it will always be 1.XX.XX so... they need to get with it somehow. Just a users POV. On 2/16/07, Scott Ritchie <scott(a)open-vote.org> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 20:13 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:53:51AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:40 -0600, John Smith wrote:
Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always making the minor version field double digit would do the trick?
How about we make the next version Wine 0.9.99.01?
Or how about we make the next version 1.0 ;)
I think 0.9.31 will have removed this confusion again.
Ciao, Marcus
Except maybe that 0.9.4 might be thought of as higher than 0.9.31
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
-- Cheers, Bryan
participants (8)
-
Andrew Talbot -
Bryan Haskins -
Dmitry Timoshkov -
John Smith -
L. Rahyen -
Marcus Meissner -
Scott Ritchie -
SorinN