Closed alerque closed 3 years ago
OpenFV seems rather complicated to me. I might as well make the next version 2, and skip minor versions altogether. In my world versions are just arbitrary increasing numbers and trying to give much semantics to them is futile.
In my world versions are just arbitrary increasing numbers and trying to give much semantics to them is futile.
I realize the semantics are on the futile side for fonts, but my main point is this: arbitrary increasing numbers are fine, but your numbers did not increase! They decreased. I agree any arbitrary increasing number scheme would get the job done (although I do think OpenFV has merit), but a number scheme that sometimes increases and sometimes decreases is worse than useless.
1.01 is certainly bigger than 1.008, the fact that some chose to interpret this as to separate numbers is no fault of mine.
2.00 is out.
The latest release tagged
v1.01
is problematic to package for distros because in most systems it evaluates to a lower version number than the previous releases such asv1.008
. This is because each segment is typically evaluated as integers, and leading zeros don't affect their value.01
is less than008
.If you would stick to the OpenFV specification for version numbers and Git tags this wouldn't be an issue because the second component of the version will always be three digits. The current release would be
v1.010
in this scheme, and of course 10 is bigger than 8 so dist packaging would be business as usual.