4 ms·
Not necessarily. 2.2 is greater than 2.12 but v2.2 is actually an early predecessors to v2.12
by ilikehurdles 5y ago
Not necessarily.
2.2 is greater than 2.12 but v2.2 is actually an early predecessors to v2.12
- zmmmmm 5y agothat is exactly why you would create a transformation to something like a big fat integer with each segment of the version number isolated to separate parts of the bit mask so you can compare it as an integer.
- mmis1000 5y agoThat would work if padding is always forced (like date). And in this case, it actually is. 2.02 is smaller than 2.12
- pfooti 5y agoBest hope you don't end up releasing 2.100 then
- mmis1000 5y agoIt can also ends up as 2.99.01. Jokes aside, there is another bug caused by some poor programmer hard-coded the length of version field recently. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29702128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29702128