Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev 25232: /trunk/ /trunk/: configure.in
From: Jaap Keuter <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 07:14:34 +0200
Hi,

There are many many ways to format a version number. The developers looked at various options and decided upon an even/odd number scheme for releases and development versions. The agreed upon compromise is discussed here: http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/ReleaseNumbers It's not perfect, but what numbering scheme is? This will do for Wireshark for now.
Thanx,
Jaap

Andrew Hood wrote:
Jaap Keuter wrote:
Hi,

So isn't it time now to 'correct' the development release number from 1.0.99 to 1.1.0?
I've never liked this sort of version numbers since string comparisons
don't sort them correctly.

Consider GTK's:

#define GTK_CHECK_VERSION(major,minor,micro)    \
    (GTK_MAJOR_VERSION > (major) || \
     (GTK_MAJOR_VERSION == (major) && GTK_MINOR_VERSION > (minor)) || \
     (GTK_MAJOR_VERSION == (major) && GTK_MINOR_VERSION == (minor) && \
      GTK_MICRO_VERSION >= (micro)))
#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,4,10)

and Motif's:

#define XmVersion       (XmVERSION * 1000 + XmREVISION)
#if XmVersion>2003

all caused by pseudo numeric version numbers.

1.0.99 would logically be followed by 1.0.100, but "1.0.99" > "1.0.100"

Can we start from now at "1.01.000"? A hundred point releases each with
a thousand patch levels should be enough for anyone. (With apologies to
Bill Gates.)