Re: [Rd] Version names

From: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch_at_stats.uwo.ca>
Date: Mon 29 Nov 2004 - 05:42:58 EST

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:09:20 +0000 (UTC), Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck@myway.com> wrote:

>
>
>I have Windows XP build scripts that look for R in a variety
>of folders and if multiple ones are found, takes the last
>one. For example, I currently have the following
>in \Program Files\R :
>
> rw1060
> rw1062
> rw1071
> rw1071beta
> rw1081
> rw1090
> rw1090dev
> rw1091
> rw1091pat
> rw2000
> rw2001beta
>
>Note that it currently correctly gets rw2001beta but if I
>add rw2001 then it will not pick it up since rw2001beta
>would continue to sort after it.
>
>I tried using dates in my scripts to pick out the right one
>but realized that it was somewhat error prone and decided to
>move back to ordering by the names.
>
>I wonder if a naming convention could be adopted that ensured
>that the names sort in order. For example,
>
> rw2010a - alpha, i.e. development version (previously rw2010dev)
> rw2010b - beta version (previously rw2001beta)
> rw2010f - final version (previously rw2010)
> rw2010p - patched version (previously rw2010pat)

That would work. Use the rename command, and you've got it.

Another possibility is to have your build script split up the name and apply a custom sort order to it.

The pattern is:

"rw" + version number + suffix

The suffices appear in this order: "dev", "alpha", "beta", "", "pat" (where not all appear, e.g. "dev" never appears for a minor release, and sometimes "alpha" is skipped).

Duncan Murdoch



R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Mon Nov 29 05:48:11 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri 18 Mar 2005 - 09:01:48 EST