Feature #6881
Version numbering sort
| Status: | New | Start date: | 2010-11-13 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Due date: | ||
| Assignee: | - | % Done: | 0% | |
| Category: | Roadmap | |||
| Target version: | - | |||
| Resolution: |
Description
This is my first bug report im not sure if it is a bug but
0.1 0.2
1.0 1.1
Works good but if you do
0.1 0.2 0.11
It be a bit wrong
/ Slaktarn
Related issues
History
#1 Updated by John Yani over 2 years ago
I think, you should use
0.01 0.02 0.11 0.20
If you want to change the version number from 0.1 to 0.01, I think, you can do that.
#2 Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang over 2 years ago
- Tracker changed from Defect to Feature
- Subject changed from Roadmap, Version Error to Version numbering sort
- Priority changed from High to Normal
Versions are sorted by date then by name (alphabetically), so what you describe is not a defect (1.1 < 1.10 < 1.2 is alphabetically correct).
What you expect is some kind of version numbering sort when names looks like x.y where x and y are integers.
#3 Updated by SwedishMatch TimerWolf over 2 years ago
Are it not any way to first sort them after numbering?
/ Slaktarn
#4 Updated by SwedishMatch TimerWolf over 2 years ago
SwedishMatch TimerWolf wrote:
Are it not any way to first sort them after numbering?
/ Slaktarn
Or atlest if that not possibel first store after date and not name to get it right anyways it culd be a workaround
#5 Updated by Ebrahim Mohammadi about 2 years ago
I don't know of any versioning scheme in which "1.10" is smaller than "1.2". I think this issue deserves a higher priority, or even it could be set as a "defect".