[GNC] Confusing version numbers

[William Prescott]

I don't speak for the development team either. 

But the sequence x.1, x.2, ... x.9, x.10, x.11 etc seems to be standard practice in numbering versions. I actually don't like it much. x.01, x.02, ... x.09, x.10, x.11 would be cleaner and sort correctly but that is not the world we live in.

Will

On Mar 7, 2023, at 05:09, aeg via gnucash-user <gnucash-user at gnucash.org> wrote:


   On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 10:37:18 GMT, Maf. King <maf at chilwell.net> wrote:  

On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 09:34:59 GMT aeg via gnucash-user wrote:
> Is there a reason why GnuCash version numbers don't follow a sequence 4.00,
> 4.01, 4.02, etc. instead of 4.0. 4.1, 4.2? I find it a little confusing
> that 4.9 is older than 4.12, and that 4.902 comes just before 5.0
> 
> Alan
> 

Not wishing to speak for the dev team... but this is how I understand the 
numbering:

4.1  does _NOT_ have a decimal point in it.  perhaps if it were written as 
4_1 it would make more logical to you as the . would not be overloaded with 
another meaning.

Major release 4.  Update (bug fix) 1.  .... Update 9...... Update 12.....

Update 900 is the "preview" to the next major version (5), and similarly 901, 
902. etc. follow on in sequence...  100 possible previews should be enough!

HTH,
Maf.

Thank you for pointing that out; I've probably been viewing it as a decimal point.
Alan




_______________________________________________
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user at gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
-----
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.