It seems like most of the time the XX part is essentially two digits, where the leading 0 is implied, i.e.:
1.1.1 -> 1.01.01 This could be directly compared with: 1.0101 and would solve the case where 1.9.1 > 1.10.1 Looks like the only case where that wouldn't work would be where the format looks like X.XXX_XX but thankfully nobody would ever do anything that silly (++$sarcasm) I don't remember the last time I saw a version w/ .XXX. in it other than perl itself. Austin On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:14:41 -0400 David Golden <xda...@gmail.com> wrote: > I scanned the version numbers as parsed out of distribution filenames > on my minicpan and analyzed the generic format. Since we're talking > about distribution version numbers and most of the time those will be > generated by M::B, EU::MM or M::I and applied to META.yml and the > filename, it's reasonably representative of the problem space. > > While there are probably some edge cases that I didn't parse > correctly, it's close enough to see what's out there. > > In the following table "X" is a digit (best viewed monospaced). The > full analysis is here: > http://echo.dagolden.com/~xdg/format-analysis.txt > > OVERALL TOP FORMATS > X.XX 12986 > X.X 1624 > X.XXX 1048 > X.X.X 754 > X.XXXX 359 > X.XXXXX 165 # Repository sequence numbers? > vX.X.X 138 > X.XX_XX 89 > X.X.XX 71 > X 64 > X.XX.X 62 > X.XXXXXX 58 > X.XX.XX 37 > X.XXa 34 > X.X.X.X 19 > XXXXXXXXXX 19 # YYYYMMDDNN? > X_XX 18 > XXXXXXXX 18 # YYYYMMDD? > X.XXb 17 > X.XX_X 16 > > -- David
