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

[Peter Van Eynde]

Hello  people,

On 1/16/06, Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril <Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle at t-systems.com> wrote:
> 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 counts for me is what the current 'live' iterate sources are. If
the common-lisp.net archive is 'dead' then someone should contact the
cl.net administrators so that they can either kick the iterate people
to accept patches or to give you write access or to transfer the
project to you.

Either way, a canonical place should be found somewhere, with a
version number that people can talk about, ie 1.4.65 not 'the latest
version I saw'.

> What would you like to have
>  + 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?

This is the most preferred way, it also allows synchronisation between
different groups and recovery of conflicts (2 groups releasing version
1.4.x at the same time).

>  + not change this Lisp variable, until I really change the API or functionality?

No. Doing a release means you changed 'something', so you increment the third
number: 1.4.x -> 1.4.x+1. Changing the API I would change the second
number: 1.4.x -> 1.5.0.

Or you could go the SLIME way 'the only place is HEAD'. For them I use
the date when I took the snapshot as 'version'.

I hope I'm being clearer now?

Groetjes, Peter

--
signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/
"God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave Aronson|