|
|
|
|
|
by usrbinbash
942 days ago
|
|
Or I could just accept that neither numeric, nor string ordering works for semantic versioning, and write a trivially easy piece of code that does the ordering in a contect where I expect such a scheme. > If we wanted trivially comparable with regular numeric ordering we could have incremental numbers as versions. 1, 2, 3, ... Yes, and then we would be back to the day when the version number gave me zero information about what changed, and how that affects compatibility with existing code. There is a reason semver is used across the industry by now. |
|
Hence the whole "3.10 and 3.9 are perfectly mechanically comparable (meaning one can write a program to deterministically compare them and return their relative order)" part in my comment you perhaps missed.
>Yes, and then we would be back to the day when the version number gave me zero information about what changed, and how that affects compatibility with existing code.
Not that it's any better now with semver though: in practice the semver works 95% of the time, and give just a false sense of comfort at the other 5%. You update, and things still break, despite the semver promise.