[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Savannah-dev] [Bug #2458] sorting order
From: |
nobody |
Subject: |
[Savannah-dev] [Bug #2458] sorting order |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:28:45 -0500 |
=================== BUG #2458: LATEST MODIFICATIONS ==================
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=2458&group_id=11
Changes by: Mathieu Roy <address@hidden>
Date: 2003-Feb-10 16:28 (Europe/Paris)
What | Removed | Added
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity | 3 - Ordinary | 1 - Enhancement
Resolution | None | Works for me
------------------ Additional Follow-up Comments ----------------------------
Ok, I seen the error message.
But the sorting in itself is ok, no ?
We have
1.0a2
pax-1.0a2.tar.bz2 19.16KB tar.bz2 2003-02-03
1.0a1
pax-1.0a1.tar.bz2 15.17KB tar.bz2 2003-02-03
1.0
Which is correct.
But for " 1.0alpha1" is earlier than "1.0beta1" and both are earlier than "1.0"
which is earlier than "1.0.1" ", I'm not convinced : it means implementing a
complex way to sort files by asking the software to interpret version's name.
Which is a bloat: we would have to guess every cases possibles, which is not
feasible in the long run and which generate extra load.
The better solution is for developers to stick to coherent naming policy: and
number and alphabet is I think to more coherent choice in latin-based societies.
Other arguments?
The bug in pax is in fact just the fact that the content of 1.0 is empty. The
message would be more explicit but it not right now a priority.
=================== BUG #2458: FULL BUG SNAPSHOT ===================
Submitted by: lalo Project: Savannah
Submitted on: 2003-Feb-03 22:18
Category: Download area Severity: 1 - Enhancement
Priority: None Bug Group: None
Resolution: Works for me Assigned to: yeupou
Status: Open Effort: 0.00
Summary: sorting order
Original Submission: The sorting order seems to be ascii now. It should sort
so that "1.0alpha1" is earlier than "1.0beta1" and both are earlier than "1.0"
which is earlier than "1.0.1".
A good source for how to do this is Debian's (as seen in dpkg) sorting order.
Follow-up Comments
*******************
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2003-Feb-10 16:28 By: yeupou
Ok, I seen the error message.
But the sorting in itself is ok, no ?
We have
1.0a2
pax-1.0a2.tar.bz2 19.16KB tar.bz2 2003-02-03
1.0a1
pax-1.0a1.tar.bz2 15.17KB tar.bz2 2003-02-03
1.0
Which is correct.
But for " 1.0alpha1" is earlier than "1.0beta1" and both are earlier than "1.0"
which is earlier than "1.0.1" ", I'm not convinced : it means implementing a
complex way to sort files by asking the software to interpret version's name.
Which is a bloat: we would have to guess every cases possibles, which is not
feasible in the long run and which generate extra load.
The better solution is for developers to stick to coherent naming policy: and
number and alphabet is I think to more coherent choice in latin-based societies.
Other arguments?
The bug in pax is in fact just the fact that the content of 1.0 is empty. The
message would be more explicit but it not right now a priority.
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2003-Feb-04 15:48 By: lalo
http://savannah.nongnu.org/files/?group=opental on the "pax" thread below. It
even gives an error message: "Warning: Wrong datatype in sort() call in
/subversions/sourceforge/src/savannah/www/files/index.php on line 122"
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2003-Feb-04 12:17 By: yeupou
Can you show me an example of incorrect sorting?
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2003-Feb-03 22:23 By: lalo
I suppose I could try to understand how it does sorting based on the code on
cvs, but php reads more or less like an alien language to me (alien as on, from
other planet, not other country)
CC list is empty
No files currently attached
For detailed info, follow this link:
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=2458&group_id=11
- [Savannah-dev] [Bug #2458] sorting order, nobody, 2003/02/03
- [Savannah-dev] [Bug #2458] sorting order, nobody, 2003/02/03
- [Savannah-dev] [Bug #2458] sorting order, nobody, 2003/02/04
- [Savannah-dev] [Bug #2458] sorting order, nobody, 2003/02/04
- [Savannah-dev] [Bug #2458] sorting order,
nobody <=
- [Savannah-dev] [Bug #2458] sorting order, nobody, 2003/02/10
- [Savannah-dev] [Bug #2458] sorting order, nobody, 2003/02/10
- [Savannah-dev] [Bug #2458] sorting order, nobody, 2003/02/10