Question about version in submitting patches

[Faré]

To be clear, I did not introduce semantic versioning in ASDF, Dan
Barlow, the original author did. Actually, by making ASDF 2 and ASDF 3
explicitly backward-compatible with their predecessors, I violated the
rule that says that a major version change equates to API
incompatibility, and indeed had to change the definition of
version-compatible-p accordingly (and many other systems defied this
rule). A rule that makes sense for library ABI compatibility but not
so much for source-level compatibility.

Also, an advantage of the current ASDF numbering scheme is that it
makes it clear WHICH version from the trunk you've been forking out
of. That only makes sense if there is a strong trunk and branches that
don't deviate too much from it, of course, but that's always been the
goal for ASDF.

Finally, no, please do NOT include your local versions in your merge
requests. It doesn't help at all and it hinders a lot.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
It is deplorable that many people think that the best way to improve the world
is to forbid something. However, they're morally more advanced than the people
who think the best way to improve the world is to kill somebody.
        — John McCarthy

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 11:00 AM Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
>
> I'm going to table this discussion on the grounds that "this ship has sailed." Faré set the pattern for version numbering, for good or ill. Since that is the case, I'm going to decline to get into the discussion of the "good or ill" question, and simply say that it would be far too disruptive to change the version numbering scheme at this point.
>
> Best,
> R
>
>
> On 27 Nov 2020, at 6:51, Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>
> 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