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:
HiSorry 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 kindYYYYMMDDAre better thanmajor.minor.small.itsy.bitsy.bitWhat do you think?All the bestMarcoOn Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 4:16 AM Mark Evenson <evenson@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