2 ms·
Parsing that seems non trivial. If you really cared dates you could just do: 1.2016.2.20
by untog 11y ago
Parsing that seems non trivial. If you really cared dates you could just do:
1.2016.2.20
- xjay 11y agoWhat's difficult about it? ISO 8601 is an established format. It's better to differentiate a new format from the old, common build number formats w.x.y.z. One of the tags could also contain the file name, or other context within []. Syntax: $Version:YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss+00#Tag#(Custom)#[Context] Minimum: $Version:YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss+00 Minimum with your own version: $Version:YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss+00#(a.b.c.d) The +00 is to emphasize UTC time (which all of these datestamps are stored as). I suspect some people find it too verbose to use dates, but that's irrelevant; this is the minimum amount of information required for a more general versioning scheme, in my opinion.
- untog 11y agoIn the course of this thread you've proposed at least six slightly different variations of the concept - what do you think are the chances of getting everyone to agree to just one of them?