The dictatorship of versioning
fahree at gmail.com
Tue Jun 16 15:05:27 UTC 2015
>> I kind of like the general idea of Pascal's proposal: separate a
>> human-readable-version-string from an asdf-comparable-version-string.
>> The exact names are to be determined. Maybe, by analogy with name and
>> long-name, description and long-description, we could make that
>> version (used by ASDF) and long-version (used by humans).
> Works for me, as long as it is also possible to delegate comparison to
> the concerned system. Or, you adopt my personal versioning scheme :-D.
Versioning is a can of worms I refrained from opening while I was the
maintainer, and that I'd rather keep not opening now that I'm not
anymore. I don't know what Robert's position is, but I suppose the
general ASDF policy is to accept patches, as long as (1) it's backward
compatible (or there's a STRONG reason not to be AND there are only
few affected users in Quicklisp, if any, who all have been notified
and/or offered backward and forward compatibility patches), (2) it
allows ASDF itself to remain minimal, and leaves advanced features to
extensions, (3) the patch includes tests.
So, if you can implement you version scheme as an extension, ASDF will
probably be happy providing all the hooks you need in ASDF 3.2, if
they are currently missing -- but the hard work of determining whot
those hooks are remains yours, and they can't be made to magically
appear in old versions of ASDF, either.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Exposed to the attacks of friends and acquaintances; defamed; slandered.
More information about the asdf-devel