| 9:33 pm on Jan 17, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Do you mean 5.2.4 or 5.4.2?
You mentioned both.
| 9:44 pm on Jan 17, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I meant to type 5.2.4
(I've edit the original post)
Sorry for the confusion
| 10:16 pm on Jan 17, 2013 (gmt 0)|
5.2.4 is older, 5.2.17 is newer, both by date and by numbering.
However, 5.3.1 is older than 5.2.17 because after 5.3.x versions were released some updates continued with 5.2.x versions, but 5.3.x versions have an enhanced feature set compared to 5.2.x versions.
The 5.4.x versions are the latest releases.
| 8:15 am on Jan 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|The coder's response is "Release date does not mean the most current version". |
I'd seek another coder after that comment.
| 11:48 am on Jan 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
What he probably meant by that, is probably explained by looking at this confusing scenario:
5.3.21 is dated 2013-01-17
5.4.10 is dated 2012-12-20
Although by looking at the date, version 5.3.21 was produced more recently, in actual fact the 5.4.x versions are the ones with the more up-to-date feature set (as shown by the higher version numbers e.g. 5.4 vs. 5.3).
| 12:17 pm on Jan 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
g1smd, I'll grant you your (obvious) truth, but in a discussion in the between 5.2.4 and 5.2.17 it's as bogus an argument as it it can get.
| 1:24 pm on Jan 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I completely agree. :)
We've only got a small snippet of the original conversation, and maybe not the full context of some of the quotes.
| 1:44 pm on Jan 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
The coder has created and maintains a very nice WordPress plugin for which he references the minimum requirements for a trouble free experience.
One of the requirements is:
"PHP version 5.2.4 or greater"
In reference to a problem a user is having with his plugin, he states:
"According to your server, you are running 5.2.17. This is not compatible with (his plugin)".
Thus my confusion, as I contend that 5.2.17 is in fact "greater" (more current) than his minimum requirement of 5.2.4
While I'm not satisfied with the coder's response, at least the answers in this thread convinced me that I have read the release history/changelog correctly.
| 1:46 pm on Jan 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Yes, the coder appears to be wrong.
You should get him to list all the versions that are compatible.
When a part of the version number can run above 9, I much prefer to use 5.2.04 or 5.02.04 for the lower versions.
When that doesn't happen you can end up with this sort of mess: [software.cisco.com...] where new releases appear in the middle of the list on the left.
| 2:13 pm on Jan 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Agreed. The numbering convention for software releases doesn't always seem to be universally agreed upon or adhered to. :-(
Again, thanks to all for your responses.