[iterate-devel] Fwd: if-first-iteration, a little better vers ion as an arch patch

[Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril]

Peter Van Eynde wrote:
>> am i right when i assume there's no source control for iterate
>> currently and the arch/tla source tree (at
>> iterate-devel at common-lisp.net--2004/iterate--main--1.4) 
>This seem to be the case, this and the lack of a version bump in the
>'newest' tar.gz's asd file makes life difficult for this debian
>maintainer.

Hm, I'm not sure I understand. You seem to miss two things:
o one is some update at common-lisp.net, in the main-1.4 branch.  I can't help with that, only people with write access can.

o the other is some means to see whether there's something new in the .tgz which I send out?  That I can answer.
 + I didn't feel like changing
(defconst version "1.4" "Current version of Iterate")
into "1.4.x" for every patch that I send. I fount it ok to have only major.minor, not x.y.z.  And what I sent out last year are mostly bugfixes, so there wasn't a need to update minor.

Anyway, my idea about how things work is that whoever puts my stuff into Arch at common-lisp.net will automatically cause a new Arch number to be generated, so my own numbering schemes are moot anyway.
I thought I understood that only what is in common-lisp.net HEAD counts for the Debian source (and thus Peter), so my RCS numbering is of no interest to others.

What would you like to have
 + change (defconst version to "1.4.23"), in sync with my own internal RCS numbers?
 + change it according to some other numbering, i.e. e.g. "1.4.5" when it's the fifth time I send out the archive publicly?
 + not change this Lisp variable, until I really change the API or functionality?
 + name the .tgz archives differently than e.g. iterate-jch.tgz?
 + none of the above, you were not talking about that at all.

Would you please clarify?
	Jörg Höhle.