[asdf-devel] Re: ASDF 3.0.2.1 released

[Faré]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
> Raymond Toy wrote:
>> If this is the first release candidate, can you explain the difference
>> between this and the 3.0.2 that was released a month or so ago?  I'm a
>> bit confused now on the numbering.
>
> I have been assuming that the numbering is:
>
> x.y.z
>
> x = major revision -- I do not expect to preside over one of these!
> ASDF 2 was a major clean-up.  ASDF 3 added substantial improvements in
> dependency tracking, etc.
>
> y = change to API
>
> z = patch release
>
> This is what is enshrined in the ASDF versioning predicates, so I
> figured I would stick with that.
>
Yes, that's about what it is. There's a comment around one of the
occurrences of the version string, explaining the version scheme.

> Faré has always put a revision tag on everything, I suppose to make it
> easier to identify where bugs appear and don't, etc.  So I have been
> sticking with this standard practice by adding that extra .1.
>
Actually, (a) I've only systematically put a git tag but on released
versions and a few notable other versions; but (b) I've tried to bump
the version number any time there was a change in asdf.lisp, so the
number can always be used to precisely identify the code in a bug
report. That's why (c) I've been using an extra digit such as this .1
in unreleased versions, to distinguish any two versions pushed to
master.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
It should be a grammatical if not legal offense to ascribe thoughts,
opinions and decisions to "we" without a signed power of attorney.