Feature #7269

Sort versions by version numbers x.y.z{z} instead of alphabetically

Added by Darni Jules over 9 years ago. Updated over 7 years ago.

Status:ClosedStart date:2011-01-10
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:-% Done:

0%

Category:Roadmap
Target version:-
Resolution:Duplicate

Description

Example:

1.0.1
1.0.10
1.0.2
1.0.3

Related issues

Duplicated by Redmine - Defect #8653: Version name alphanumeric sorting Closed 2011-06-20
Duplicates Redmine - Feature #6881: Version numbering sort New 2010-11-13

History

#1 Updated by Bruno Medeiros over 9 years ago

I'ts probably due to an alphabetical sort.

#2 Updated by Bruno Medeiros over 9 years ago

You can assign dates to your versions, it's the first field used to sort.

#3 Updated by Darni Jules over 9 years ago

I don't know the release date ahead of time, which is apparently what this date is used for (Due in X days). But I can use this as a workaround for the sorting.

#4 Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang over 9 years ago

  • Tracker changed from Defect to Feature
  • Subject changed from x.y.z{z} versions not sorted correctly in roadmap to Sort versions by version numbers x.y.z{z} instead of alphabetically

#5 Updated by James Byrne over 9 years ago

Would it not be more useful to simply allow dynamic sorting both int settings/versions page and the Roadmap page? That way people can choose whichever column is meaningful to them, version number or due date.

I am not too keen on sorting the version by number if that means enforcing strict numerical version numbers. We preface our versions with project strings and sometimes add suffixes. For example: P-01.001.0001.b12. It is simple enough to adopt a placeholder pattern for version numbers (##.###.####) such that alphabetic and numeric sorting amount to the same thing.

#6 Updated by Etienne Massip over 9 years ago

  • Category set to Roadmap

#7 Updated by Daniel Albuschat over 8 years ago

Actually, since we don't use numbers in versions at all (bug instead some fancy names), I'd prefer a custom sorting.
I can see how this should be a rare case and numerical sorting should be the default, but I'd still think this should be considered.

#8 Updated by David Rahusen over 7 years ago

+1

#9 Updated by Toshi MARUYAMA over 7 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Closed
  • Resolution set to Duplicate

Duplicate with #6881.

Also available in: Atom PDF