Next steps

[Robert Goldman]

On 17 Nov 2021, at 13:31, Robert Dodier wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:45 AM Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> 
> wrote:
>
>> I favor something like this because it would be nice to have 
>> prerelease versions of ASDF that perform version checks properly.
>>
>> What I mean is, if we are going to add a feature in version 3.4, 
>> right now that would be in a prerelease version with a version number 
>> of something like 3.3.5.22
>>
>> It would be a lot better for realistic testing if we could instead 
>> use 3.4.0-alpha1 or 3.4.0-1 and have ASDF know that 3.4.0-1 comes 
>> before 3.4.0, not after.
>
> Hi Robert, hi everyone. I haven't been following closely, but while
> you are working out details, let me just mention that I recommend
> against version numbers that require special interpretation to
> discover their ordering, e.g. 3.4.0-1 < 3.4.0.
>
> Mostly I'm just thinking that somebody's not going to get the memo
> (it's usually me).
>
> For what it's worth, and all the best.


I guess that would be an argument for using something more obvious than 
`-`, like the string `alpha` so `3.4.0-alpha1` or `3.4.0alpha1` instead 
of `3.4.0-1` since there the meaning should be relatively obvious.

My feeling is that if a user misinterprets `3.4.0-1`, then shame on me.  
But if a user misinterprets `3.4.0alpha1` then shame on them.

I'm not sure how that would align with semver...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20211117/ca66bbe8/attachment.html>