Question about version in submitting patches

[Marco Antoniotti]

Hi

Sorry for the general noise, not necessarily related to the issue at hand.

I know I am a P.I.T.A.,  but I kind of concluded that versions of the kind

    YYYYMMDD

Are better than

    major.minor.small.itsy.bitsy.bit

What do you think?

All the best

Marco






On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 4:16 AM Mark Evenson <evenson at panix.com> wrote:

> I’m a little unsure of whether the “Committee for Ongoing and Perpetual
> ASDF maintenance” (hi Robert!) wishes us to include the results of
> “<file:bin/bump-version>” in submitted patches.
>
> I have a small ABCL-specific patch dealing with UIOP:PARSE-UNIX-NAMESTRING
> when loading system definitions from zip archives for which I have used
> bump-version to denote as version “3.3.4.0.1”.  I’ve not quite finished my
> testing to ensure that previous versions of ABCL work well with it, but
> when I do, do you wish me to include the use of “bump-version” with the
> patch or is that something the Committee prefers to do on its own?
>
> yours,
> Mark
>
>
> --
> "A screaming comes across the sky.  It has happened before but there is
> nothing
> to compare to it now."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Marco Antoniotti, Associate Professor         tel. +39 - 02 64 48 79 01
DISCo, Università Milano Bicocca U14 2043 http://bimib.disco.unimib.it
Viale Sarca 336
I-20126 Milan (MI) ITALY
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20201127/ae49f1c8/attachment.htm>