[Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

There are many many ways to format a version number. The developers looked at 
various options and decided upon an even/odd number scheme for releases and 
development versions. The agreed upon compromise is discussed here: 
http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/ReleaseNumbers
It's not perfect, but what numbering scheme is? This will do for Wireshark for 
now.

Thanx,
Jaap

Andrew Hood wrote:
> Jaap Keuter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > So isn't it time now to 'correct' the development release number from 1.0.99 
> > to 1.1.0?
>
> I've never liked this sort of version numbers since string comparisons
> don't sort them correctly.
>
> Consider GTK's:
>
> #define GTK_CHECK_VERSION(major,minor,micro)    \
>     (GTK_MAJOR_VERSION > (major) || \
>      (GTK_MAJOR_VERSION == (major) && GTK_MINOR_VERSION > (minor)) || \
>      (GTK_MAJOR_VERSION == (major) && GTK_MINOR_VERSION == (minor) && \
>       GTK_MICRO_VERSION >= (micro)))
> #if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,4,10)
>
> and Motif's:
>
> #define XmVersion       (XmVERSION * 1000 + XmREVISION)
> #if XmVersion>2003
>
> all caused by pseudo numeric version numbers.
>
> 1.0.99 would logically be followed by 1.0.100, but "1.0.99" > "1.0.100"
>
> Can we start from now at "1.01.000"? A hundred point releases each with
> a thousand patch levels should be enough for anyone. (With apologies to
> Bill Gates.)