Feature #7269
closedSort versions by version numbers x.y.z{z} instead of alphabetically
0%
Description
Example:
1.0.1
1.0.10
1.0.2
1.0.3
Related issues
Updated by Bruno Medeiros almost 14 years ago
I'ts probably due to an alphabetical sort.
Updated by Bruno Medeiros almost 14 years ago
You can assign dates to your versions, it's the first field used to sort.
Updated by Darni Jules almost 14 years ago
I don't know the release date ahead of time, which is apparently what this date is used for (Due in X days). But I can use this as a workaround for the sorting.
Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang almost 14 years ago
- Tracker changed from Defect to Feature
- Subject changed from x.y.z{z} versions not sorted correctly in roadmap to Sort versions by version numbers x.y.z{z} instead of alphabetically
Updated by James Byrne almost 14 years ago
Would it not be more useful to simply allow dynamic sorting both int settings/versions page and the Roadmap page? That way people can choose whichever column is meaningful to them, version number or due date.
I am not too keen on sorting the version by number if that means enforcing strict numerical version numbers. We preface our versions with project strings and sometimes add suffixes. For example: P-01.001.0001.b12. It is simple enough to adopt a placeholder pattern for version numbers (##.###.####) such that alphabetic and numeric sorting amount to the same thing.
Updated by Daniel Albuschat almost 13 years ago
Actually, since we don't use numbers in versions at all (bug instead some fancy names), I'd prefer a custom sorting.
I can see how this should be a rare case and numerical sorting should be the default, but I'd still think this should be considered.
Updated by Toshi MARUYAMA over 11 years ago
- Status changed from New to Closed
- Resolution set to Duplicate
Duplicate with #6881.