bug#55787: closed (29.0.50; inconsistent sort order with ls-lisp-version-lessp)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 05 Jun 2022 12:48:54 +0300
with message-id <83o7z7a1a1.fsf@gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#55787: 29.0.50; inconsistent sort order with 
ls-lisp-version-lessp
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #55787,
regarding 29.0.50; inconsistent sort order with ls-lisp-version-lessp
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
55787: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=55787
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> 29.0.50; inconsistent sort order with ls-lisp-version-lessp
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sat, 04 Jun 2022 08:21:48 +0900
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I encounter an inconsistent sort result.  The position of "01.0" and/or
> "01.2" seems wrong.
>
>
> $ cat /tmp/test.el
> (require 'ls-lisp)
> (print (sort (vector "01.0" "10" "010" "01.2")
>              (lambda (x y)
>                (ls-lisp-version-lessp x y))))
> $ emacs -Q --batch -l /tmp/test.el
>
> ["01.0" "10" "010" "01.2"]
> $
>
> In GNU Emacs 29.0.50 (build 1, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.24.33, cairo 
> version 1.16.0)
>  of 2022-05-26 built on LAPTOP-89LTAUNV
> Repository revision: 531688a19e2125b20c2efa032e02b9cebbedb397
> Repository branch: master
> Windowing system distributor 'Microsoft Corporation', version 11.0.12010000
> System Description: Ubuntu 22.04 LTS
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#55787: 29.0.50; inconsistent sort order with ls-lisp-version-lessp
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun, 05 Jun 2022 12:48:54 +0300
>
>
>
>
> > From: TAKAHASHI Yoshio <yfb02119@nifty.com>
> > Cc: 55787@debbugs.gnu.org
> > Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2022 18:38:10 +0900
> > 
> > Eli-san,
> > 
> > > Please see if you get a more reasonable behavior.  (I'm not
> > > sure you will see exactly the same order as in "ls -lv", though; not
> > > sure why.)
> > 
> > As you menthined in earler mail, the specification of strverscmp is not
> > documented clearly.  I believe your fix generates reasonable listing
> > order.  I appreciate your fix.  Thank you!
>
> Thanks, I'm therefore closing this bug.
>
>
> --- End Message ---