Michael Sweet wrote:
> Greg Ercolano wrote:
>> I think some folks might be downloading eg. 1.0.x instead of 1.1.x
>> because at a quick glance, eg. 1.0.11 might seem like it's newer than 1.1.9
>>
>> I think if dates were included on the Downloads page next to the releases,
>> this could be avoided.
>
> Maybe, but we already list them newest to oldest...
Yes, though I've noticed many (eg. gnu) projects list things
the other way around, oldest to newest, because version numbered
files in raw directory listings show up that way, eg:
ftp://mirrors.usc.edu/pub/gnu/binutils
So folks used to that are used to quickly scrolling to the
*bottom* and grabbing the last file with the highest last digits.
Or I believe that to be the cause of some folks grabbing the
absolute oldest 1.0.x revs of FLTK by mistake.
They'd surely think twice before downloading a file
that had a 2001 date stamp.
Dates would probably be good to show anyway, for completeness.
_______________________________________________
fltk-dev mailing list
fltk-dev@easysw.com
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
