Version numbering problem

[jdg]

Firefox thinks that 1.9.8.86 > 1.9.8.9, whereas NoScript thinks the opposite. So Firefox cheerfully "upgrades" NoScript from 1.9.8.9 to 1.9.8.86, whereupon NoScript complains that it's not the latest version. Could the version be numbered 1.9.8.90 instead, please?

[therube]

How do you like that, it does do that.
Wonder if that is only because the AMO isn't yet updated to the 1.9.8.9 version (or at least fully updated)?

Or is it simply a bug in FF?
(SeaMonkey 2 does the same.)

I guess for something like this, Bug 301191 - Warn before downgrading to an older version of an extension, to be implemented & to work, one has to understand version numbering.

Bug 376638 - should warn if developer uploads with version number that is considered to less than an existing version

Toolkit version format

Software versioning

[therube]

Additionally, on http://noscript.net/feed?t=a, 1.9.8.9's release notes show up under (a doubled) "1.9.8.87" entry.

[al_9x]

Or is it simply a bug in FF?

Why would it be a bug? 86 > 9.

[therube]

Because in reality (depending on how you want to look at it) it is either 8.6 < 9.0 or 86 < 90.
At least that is the way it is intended to be understood to work out.
Just so happens it is not working out that way (at present?).

If I (manually) reinstall noscript-1.9.8.89.xpi, NoScript reports (on restart):

Looks like you are running an older version (1.9.8.89), probably because addons.mozilla.org did not publish the latest version yet.
You are strongly encouraged to upgrade manually to latest stable version (1.9.8.9).

So it knows that I'm behind.

But now if I go to Add-ons | Find Updates, AMO reports nothing, because .89 > .86 (which is what they currently have).

If I put in 1.9.8.85, then both NoScript & AMO know that I am out of date.

(If not for this post, I had never before used Find Updates.)

[Alan Baxter]

We've discussed this problem with NoScript using 1.a.b.cd instead of 1.a.b.c.d before, and it's finally bit us in the butt. AMO can't be a mind-reader, regardless of Giorgio's intent. AMO is doing it right: 86 is greater than 9. I hope Giorgio fixes this pronto. Changing the version to 1.9.8.90 or 1.9.9 should fix the problem.

Edit: Changed 89 to 86

[Giorgio Maone]

Fixed, thanks.