New version of ASDF pushed

Robert P. Goldman rpgoldman at
Mon May 4 16:48:19 UTC 2015

Faré wrote:
>>> While I think we should indeed soon release 3.2, I believe that it is
>>> not so urgent that it can't wait for a few more useful changes,
>>> especially since we do provide backward compatibility functions for
>>> the old API. So I propose we release a 3.1.5 for now, and do a few
>>> more changes before we actually cut a 3.2.
>> I wasn't clear: I don't mean that we need to do a 3.2 release at this
>> very moment, just that these changes are not fully compatible, so are
>> worthy of a "greater than patch level" release.
> Well, we do provide a backward compatible API;
> but it's true that the behavior on Windows has slightly changed.

We provide a backward compatible API, but we don't have a *forward*
compatible one, because of the new XDG functions.
> On the other hand, we have accumulated enough bug fixes and features since
> last October, including support for a new implementation (clasp)
> to warrant a release soon. Release numbers are not a scarce resource,
> so if you believe this requires a 3.2 release now, that just means that
> the further changes I'd like will have to be for a 3.3 release.
>> On the other hand, maybe we need to have be the next thing we
>> push, and call it a release candidate. It may be that the release will
>> have to be 3.2.1, but I could live with that.
> That's how we did the 3.1 release: pre-releases as 3.1.0.x,
> and release as 3.1.1. It seems to have worked out well —
> well except for immediately followeing it with a 3.1.2 for a bug fix :-(.
>> What do firm believers in semantic versioning do about this?  Just
>> always have their release be x.y.z when they want x.y, so that they can
>> have a release candidate?  Or do they do something like x.y.rcz?  That
>> would require a change to VERSION-SATISFIES...
> We could specially parse rc as "-1", "beta" as "-2", "alpha" as -3, etc,
> but that sounds like dubious over-engineering to me.

Agreed.  OK, the next time I push, I will push, because I'd like
to have people be able to start checking for version 3.2 for the new XDG
functions (and eventually the new test-operation functions).

Should we push just asdf-3.2 or also uiop-3.2 (since the new XDG
functions are properly UIOP)?


More information about the asdf-devel mailing list