New naming scheme for patches after MG04/10.3.01

Author: i2stiller@gmx.de (istiller)

hi Jan Why  uf9705-001w32.exe  and not  uf09705-001w32.exe  ? With this extra 0, you got a "natural" sort order. Just my opinion  Wink Ingo

4 Comments

  1. I suppose you refer to this thread ? Adding the extra zero makes sense, but perhaps 'disrupts' the sort order on older files (0906 etc.) that still don't have the extra zero.


    Author: Arjen van Vliet (arjen.van.vliet@uniface.com)
  2. Arjen van Vliet said I suppose you refer to this thread ? Adding the extra zero makes sense, but perhaps 'disrupts' the sort order on older files (0906 etc.) that still don't have the extra zero.  

    Hi Arjen Yes, I did refer to the thread under technical announcements. But there I could not add a response Confused And about the extra "0". As the schema is totaly new for the patch-files, it does not disrupt any older naming conventionsWink Ingo


    Author: istiller (i2stiller@gmx.de)
  3. Hi Arjen, but the old patches start with the platform (w32...), so we have a break in sorting already between new and old patches. So when we start a brand new naming pattern, Ingos suggestion is worth to consider (even if it may take some time getting used to "U09")


    Author: ulrich-merkel (ulrichmerkel@web.de)
  4. ulrich-merkel said Hi Arjen, So when we start a brand new naming pattern, Ingos suggestion is worth to consider (even if it may take some time getting used to "U09")  

      And U09nnn will be the branch to use for a long, very long time. Or? Laugh


    Author: istiller (i2stiller@gmx.de)