My Quicksilver 2002 doesnt like MorphOS

[Kremlar]

Just a sidenote: 1.10 is included in MorphOS, not 1.1. So using 1.9 would actually be a downgrade. But as Piru said, use 1.14, anyway.  

If that's true, that's horrible and confusing versioning.
 
1.10 should always be = to 1.1
1.9 should always be > 1.14

[Kremlar]

No idea what's "Amigan" or not, or what breaks what, just pointing out it is not logical and is confusing.
 
1.09 would be < 1.14

[Kremlar]

It's confusing because in 99% of all cases, in the general software world, versioning is done using decimal. And when you use a decimal point, you're certainly implying that.
 
It's not confusing for you because you're familiar with the software. But, what if one piece of software uses decimal and the other does not? How does the user know which is which if both are presented in the same format and both use a decimal point?
 
If I'm a new user installing MorphOS and trying to download a piece of software and I see version 1.14 and version 1.9 I'm instinctively going to download 1.9.
 
I understand what you're saying, I'm just pointing out that it's confusing to the user. You can't use a decimal point and say it's not a decimal number and expect a typical user to just know that.
 
From a general perspective if it's version 1 revision 14, it should be labeled v1r14 not 1.14.

[Kremlar]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

There's no way to know. Decimal number is far less flexible and confusing way to do it however, and thus it is used less and less.

Are you saying decimal is more or less confusing?  I find it less.  And I don't see how it would be less flexible.  You can simply pad with 0s, like:

1.09.05 and 1.14.06 which can be interpreted only 1 way
 
instead of 1.9.5 and 1.14.6 which can be interpreted 2 ways

[Kremlar]

So it isn't a decimal number anymore but some strange way to group hundreds? Also what happens if revision gets more than 2 digits? How can you add extra 0s to the old version numbers to avoid confusion?
 
I'm sorry but this is just more confusing than using separate numbers for version, revision [,build etc].

If you anticipate it you pad additional 0s:
 
1.009.005
1.014.006
1.128.341
 
Or, add to it:
 
1.09.05
1.14.06
1.14.06.24
1.14.06.28
 
Type these into Excel and see how they sort:

1.9.5
1.14.6
1.22.8
 
 
Excel sees 1.14.6 as the lesser value.
 
I see the merit in both ways, but I think my preference is more straightforward.  My evidence is Gulliver, who misunderstood as well.

[Kremlar]

Eeek, now that's really ugly.

Whether it's pretty or ugly, it cannot be confused. Should a versioning scheme based around what is ugly or pretty?
 

Which just proves nothing. In this case it just does some alpha sort (or possibly decimal sort on the first part, but both are irrelevant)

Both - alpha and decimal will sort the same way. How can you not see the proof in that? It's mathematical. If I want to maintain a spreadsheet of my software builds, how exactly can I sort by version and get an accurate result?
 

Should we make a poll? And is there a theorem saying that when most people think something is right, it's true, or?

Polls are worthless. The point is not what people prefer, the point is which method would cause the least confusion.
 
Make a test. Give 100 people these numbers:
 
1.012.036
1.009.010
1.056.012
 
and
 
1.12.36
1.9.10
1.56.12
 
Ask all 100 people to sort both sets of numbers. See which scheme gets the highest % of proper sorting.

[Kremlar]

Most software I see avoids confusion by, for example, saying 6.01 instead of 6.1.
 
Or 6.1000 and going from there.