revert patch to fix max collection check

[stefan0xC]

Apparently I made a mistake: dani-garcia/vaultwarden#4253

I've reverted the change and tested it (and it should just work). Sorry. 🙈

[BlackDex]

Cool, thanks.

Now I'm also able to test a letter suffix to the versions haha ;)

[tessus]

@BlackDex hmm, wouldn't that be a first?

[BlackDex]

We never used a always a b as postfix if the version of the vault didn't changed.

[tessus]

I see. I just had the old versioning scheme of openssl in my head and the started with an a.

[BlackDex]

They do start with a, but they never started without a letter ;).
Hinge why we now use a b since its the second release of v2024.1.1

[tessus]

My thought process was (in case you are wondering) that a suffix, like a letter, for versioning was used if it didn't fit the semantic versioning (or could also be used for a different reason) and denoted that it was different from the base version. Thus 1.0.0a is different than 1.0.0. Starting with a would have been logical to me, because it is the first letter in the alphabet. But in reality it doesn't matter where one starts. It's just that it looks a bit like 1.0.0 and 1.0.0a could be the same, which is weird. It feels like one release was skipped. Just my personal opinion, nothing more.

But it also makes sense to say b is the 2nd release, because b is the second letter. Well, although in IT 0-based indexing is often used. Anyway, all good and thanks for the info.

[BlackDex]

So what is the 0 based letter then ;) haha.

To be fair, i was doubting between a and b, and i just selected what previously was used.
But it's good to discuss this.

[tessus]

So what is the 0 based letter then ;) haha.

Haha. No I meant it like this:

1.0.0 Base version - index 0 (1st release of that version)
1.0.0a index 1 (2nd release of that version)
1.0.0b index 2 (3rd release of that version)

But it's good to discuss this.

Yep, it's always fun - at least for me.