Available Versions Not Chronological

Discussion in 'Site Discussions & Suggestions' started by Terminator02, Jul 8, 2012.

  1. Terminator02
    OP

    Terminator02 ヽ( 。 ヮ゚)ノ

    Member
    4,517
    309
    Apr 10, 2010
    United States
    Somewhere near monkat
    Currently, the Available Versions is listed alphanumerically instead of chronologically like it used to be. Could the old chronological style be reinstated?

    Problem shown:

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Costello

    Costello Headmaster

    Administrator
    12,337
    5,427
    Oct 24, 2002
    it's sorted by version number as it should be. (if you uploaded "v2" before "v1", the "v2" still shows up at the top)
    whoever uploaded this file put in bad version numbers.
    dates can be sorted alphanumerically too if they're in the right format: YYYY-MM-DD
     
  3. Terminator02
    OP

    Terminator02 ヽ( 。 ヮ゚)ノ

    Member
    4,517
    309
    Apr 10, 2010
    United States
    Somewhere near monkat
    It's not sorted by version number, it's alphanumeric reversed, based on what's entered in the version number box (v2 comes before v1 because 2 comes after 1). In this instance Supercard released the same EOS version but appended dates to them, and they don't show up chronologically. Supercard also does the same with their patches (they don't even give it a version number).

    This isn't the only case where reverse alphanumeric organization isn't optimal.


    Because BETA is in the version numbers, and letters come after all numbers in alphanumeric sorting, the beta versions are shown first:
    [​IMG]

    This one shows the beta and release candidates before the stable versions because letters come after numbers in alphanumeric sorting, the same problem as the last one (if R8 were to be listed, it would be below all of the Betas and RCs because of the extra characters for the Beta and RC versions):

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]