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

[Faré]

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. ASDF is not going to hard code an
exception for your library. Though it's possible to override the ASDF
default behavior, the library itself would have to do it, and there
still needs to be an ASDF default, and the question is which.

The ASDF default changed in 3.0.1, for practical reasons having to do
with an issue with ASDF itself, and making the smallest change during
a crisis. It can change back (in which case a non-default class or
initarg would be used for ASDF itself). The discussion is about what
the default should be, and what should be the means to override it if
necessary.

—♯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