[asdf-devel] has ":depends-on ((:version ...))" semantics changed?

[Pascal Costanza]

> On 18 Nov 2013, at 15:54, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> wrote:
>> The 0.xy versions of Closer to MOP were not based on semantic versioning, but on an ad hoc versioning scheme. 1.0.0 did not change any API at all, so is definitely compatible with the last 0.xy versions. 1.0.0 is supposed to acknowledge the maturity of the library, that's it.
>> 
>> The FAQ section at http://semver.org seems to suggest that exceptions to the rules are acceptable, and I believe that a change from ad hoc version numbers to semantic versioning is such an exception.
>> 
>> I'm open to suggestions for a better solution.
> You're not proposing a solution.

Indeed, because I don't know what a good solution could be.

> ASDF is not going to hard code an
> exception for your library.

Closer to MOP already existed before asdf imposed anything on version numbers, so asdf has to provide a way to define exceptions for such cases. The versioning scheme of Closer to MOP was ad hoc, because nothing existed that could have been adhered to. It must be possible for libraries to move from non-adhering to adhering in a smooth way. Frankly, I don't care how that's achieved. If I can solve this by adding something to the system definition, that's fine with me...

Pascal

> 
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
> Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why
> so few engage in it. — Henry Ford