1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> The following revision-free version comparison operators are provided: |
4 |
|
5 |
> == exact version match, or prefix match (with *) |
6 |
> != exact version non-match, or prefix non-match (with *) |
7 |
> < version less than match |
8 |
> <= version less or equal to match |
9 |
> > version greater than match |
10 |
> >= version greater or equal to match |
11 |
|
12 |
I think we should stick to the existing operators, and not introduce |
13 |
two slightly different sets for different contexts. |
14 |
|
15 |
Especially: |
16 |
- The operator for exact version match should be = not ==. |
17 |
- Omit the != operator because it can be confused with blockers. If an |
18 |
operator for inequality is needed, we can add one but it should work |
19 |
everywhere (we could e.g. use <> for that). |
20 |
- The ~ operator is missing. |
21 |
|
22 |
> All those operators compare on versions ignoring the revision part. |
23 |
|
24 |
I am strictly opposed to this. Again, it is confusing to have the same |
25 |
operators acting in a different way depending on context. |
26 |
|
27 |
> The following revision-oriented version comparison operators are |
28 |
> provided: |
29 |
|
30 |
> === exact version+revision match |
31 |
> !== exact version+revision non-match |
32 |
> <== version+revision less or equal to match |
33 |
> >== version+revision greater or equal to match |
34 |
|
35 |
These are not necessary if the regular operators match revision. |
36 |
|
37 |
Ulrich |