[asdf-devel] versioning [was Re: asdf verbosity]

[dherring at tentpost.com]

Faré wrote:
> What's wrong with (mostly) silence?
>
> What about verbosity levels, with an integer indicating what level of
> messages to get?

These are probably good things, but as Zach mentioned, recently ASDF has
started dragging users through internal development.  Its a gripe I have
about Slime and some other key libraries, so you are in good company, but
I cannot follow "the bleeding edge" as a matter of habit.

Releases broadly fall into three social categories.  Micro releases only
fix internal bugs and have no other user visibility.  Minor releases
modify behavior but should be compatible with previous releases, still
requiring no user interaction.  Major releases require the user to
understand what's changed and modify code or config files.  Major releases
need to happen slowly to minimize end-user churn, ensure proper vetting,
etc.  Major releases often come with nice ChangeLog entries summarizing
what to expect.

I think many recent ASDF changes have been good, but they are falling into
the major release category.  They can't be going into monthly Quicklisp or
SBCL updates or (your favorite distribution channel here).

This is where "trunk" and "release/stable branches" work fairly well. 
Tagging trunk is not equivalent.  If a project does not have the resources
to maintain a separate release branch, then they should simply tag major
releases at a slower rate.

People who want the latest can always look directly at trunk.  Discussion
can still be happening on list.  Its just that the end user should have to
be involved.

Thanks for your work,
Daniel