[asdf-devel] ASDF 3? WAS Re: if-component-dep-fails

[Faré]

>> Problem: asdf's current versioning scheme will declare that asdf 3 is
>> incompatible with asdf 2, so anyone who tries (asdf:version-satifies
>> "3.0" "2.26") is in for a big disappointment.
>>
>> As long as we reasonably don't break compatibility, I propose we keep
>> the asdf 2 series going indefinitely.
>
> That's a good point.
>
> If we are going to stick to ASDF 2 indefinitely, would it be a problem
> to move to an xx.yy.zz format of versioning, where delta(yy) = change in
> API and delta(zz) = patch?
>
The problem is what constitues a "change in API"; as long as we
preserve what's documented,
that can be in the eye of the beholder, and we failed to document much.

That said, I agree there should probably be a #+asdf2.27 or something,
since I'm introducing some several major changes:
asdf-bundle, building those who depend-on a modified system, proper timestamps,
yet another complete rewrite of traverse, removal of :feature and
:if-component-fails, etc.

> The reason I suggest this is that it might be easier to keep track of
> the way in which the xx's correspond to features you need that way.
> Most people who are worried about whether their ASDF system definitions
> will work could safely ignore the zz's.
>
I don't think that will work any the better than now. You will still
have to look at the debian/changelog or git log to see when a feature
was introduced or removed.

> Personally, I have pretty much lost track of when features I need were
> added to ASDF.
>
If you care to specify the proper version of asdf to depend on,
the release-to-release debian/changelog and the commit-to-commit git
log are here to help.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
What is mind? No matter! What is matter? Never mind!
        — Bertrand Russell's Grand Mother, In Karl Popper, The Unended Quest