Next steps

[Erik Huelsmann]

>From semver.org:

Example: 1.0.0-alpha < 1.0.0-alpha.1 < 1.0.0-alpha.beta < 1.0.0-beta <
1.0.0-beta.2 < 1.0.0-beta.11 < 1.0.0-rc.1 < 1.0.0

Regards,

Erik

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 8:38 PM Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:

> 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...
>


-- 
Bye,

Erik.

http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20211117/712fe9d8/attachment.html>