[GNC] Confusing version numbers

[David G. Pickett]

I we can pop to 900, we can pop to 100. 


-----Original Message-----
From: aeg <aeg21212-forum at yahoo.com>
To: David G. Pickett <dgpickett at aol.com>
Cc: gnucash-user at gnucash.org <gnucash-user at gnucash.org>
Sent: Tue, Mar 7, 2023 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers

 David,
I like your idea, as its logical sequencing would obviously be clearer, but as Will pointed out, we are probably stuck with what's already established.
Alan


Message: 1
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 15:50:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: "David G. Pickett" <dgpickett at aol.com>
To: "gnucash-user at gnucash.org" <gnucash-user at gnucash.org>
Subject: Re: [GNC] Confusing version numbers
Message-ID: <78074249.338554.1678204241486 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

It is, generally a military style numbering, so the '.' is not a decimal point, more a tab, not an alphanumeric sort but a numeric sort.? One AT&T project started their order numbers at 100,000,000 so they were always 9 digits with 900M headroom.? Maybe we could make the first revision after 4 as 4.100, so the field is in both numeric and alpha sort order?