[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sort --compare-version
From: |
James Youngman |
Subject: |
Re: sort --compare-version |
Date: |
Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:05:34 +0000 |
On Feb 5, 2008 1:09 AM, Bob Proulx <address@hidden> wrote:
> That would mean to me that version comparison would need to be of the
> form --<something>-sort and would need to be in the "Ordering
> options:" section and not the "Other options:" section. I suppose
> that this option should be called --version-sort instead in order to
> be consistent with the already existing options.
>
> But! Using --version-sort conflicts with --version. Which means my
> purpose here is simply to call this up for discussion such that some
> reasonable choice can be made since this will need to be an exception
> to the rule. Comments?
How about something synonymous, but differently spelled? For example
--releasenumber-sort?
James.
- Re: sort --compare-version, Bob Proulx, 2008/02/04
- Re: sort --compare-version,
James Youngman <=
- Re: sort --compare-version, Bruce Korb, 2008/02/06
- Re: sort --compare-version, Andreas Schwab, 2008/02/06
- Re: sort --compare-version, Bruce Korb, 2008/02/06
- Re: sort --compare-version, Jim Meyering, 2008/02/06
- Re: sort --compare-version, Bob Proulx, 2008/02/06
- Re: sort --compare-version, Andreas Schwab, 2008/02/08
- Re: sort --compare-version, Jim Meyering, 2008/02/10
- Re: sort --compare-version, Andreas Schwab, 2008/02/18
- Re: sort --compare-version, Jim Meyering, 2008/02/20
- Re: sort --compare-version, Bauke Jan Douma, 2008/02/06