What's the update policy?
On every commit? (Since we're using Git I think this is pointless.)
On release? (If so, I would suggest appending -dev to it outside releases.)
Something else?
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
On 13 March 2010 07:07, Nikodemus Siivola nikodemus@random-state.net wrote:
What's the update policy?
On every commit? (Since we're using Git I think this is pointless.)
On release? (If so, I would suggest appending -dev to it outside releases.)
Something else?
There is currently no strict policy. I bump the version and add a tag once in a while, when I reach a state that I think is releaseworthy. I usually release a tarball at the same time.
I don't know how to automatically add a -dev outside releases. If you know how to do that, I'm all ears.
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
On 13 March 2010 16:36, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how to automatically add a -dev outside releases. If you know how to do that, I'm all ears.
I meant that first commit after a release -- say 2.0 -- sets the version string to "2.1-dev" and after that it isn't touched till it's time to release 2.1, at which point the -dev is manually removed. After release the version string goes to "2.2-dev", etc.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
The problem with -dev is that it violates the rules of ASDF's own VERSION-SATISFIES.
Instead of -dev, we should use the z part of an x.y.z version number or change version-satisfies.
"Nikodemus Siivola" nikodemus@random-state.net wrote:
On 13 March 2010 16:36, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how to automatically add a -dev outside releases. If you know how to do that, I'm all ears.
I meant that first commit after a release -- say 2.0 -- sets the version string to "2.1-dev" and after that it isn't touched till it's time to release 2.1, at which point the -dev is manually removed. After release the version string goes to "2.2-dev", etc.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
We could adopt the same algorithm as dpkg or rpm uses for comparing version.
I once implemented it in shell script. Could do it in Lisp...
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] I'll start exercising as soon as I'm into shape.
On 13 March 2010 12:38, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
The problem with -dev is that it violates the rules of ASDF's own VERSION-SATISFIES.
Instead of -dev, we should use the z part of an x.y.z version number or change version-satisfies.
"Nikodemus Siivola" nikodemus@random-state.net wrote:
On 13 March 2010 16:36, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how to automatically add a -dev outside releases. If you know how to do that, I'm all ears.
I meant that first commit after a release -- say 2.0 -- sets the version string to "2.1-dev" and after that it isn't touched till it's time to release 2.1, at which point the -dev is manually removed. After release the version string goes to "2.2-dev", etc.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 3/13/10 Mar 13 -1:12 PM, Faré wrote:
We could adopt the same algorithm as dpkg or rpm uses for comparing version.
I once implemented it in shell script. Could do it in Lisp...
I confess to not really knowing this algorithm (I haven't built an RPM in a long time), nor having any guess about whether or not it would break previous :version dependencies.
Anyone know how backward compatible this would be?
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] I'll start exercising as soon as I'm into shape.
On 13 March 2010 12:38, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
The problem with -dev is that it violates the rules of ASDF's own VERSION-SATISFIES.
Instead of -dev, we should use the z part of an x.y.z version number or change version-satisfies.
"Nikodemus Siivola" nikodemus@random-state.net wrote:
On 13 March 2010 16:36, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how to automatically add a -dev outside releases. If you know how to do that, I'm all ears.
I meant that first commit after a release -- say 2.0 -- sets the version string to "2.1-dev" and after that it isn't touched till it's time to release 2.1, at which point the -dev is manually removed. After release the version string goes to "2.2-dev", etc.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 13 March 2010 16:56, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
On 3/13/10 Mar 13 -1:12 PM, Faré wrote:
We could adopt the same algorithm as dpkg or rpm uses for comparing version.
I once implemented it in shell script. Could do it in Lisp...
I confess to not really knowing this algorithm (I haven't built an RPM in a long time), nor having any guess about whether or not it would break previous :version dependencies.
See attached file (supposes ASCII, will fail on EBCDIC). Add:
(defun version<= (v1 v2) (ecase (compare-rpm-versions v1 v2) ((< =) t) ((> nil) nil))) (defmethod version-satisfies ((v string) (vmin string)) (version<= vmin v))
Do you think we should use that?
Anyone know how backward compatible this would be?
It's backwards compatible with the current version-satisfies indeed.
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. — G.K. Chesterton
On 3/13/10 Mar 13 -7:36 PM, Faré wrote:
On 13 March 2010 16:56, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
On 3/13/10 Mar 13 -1:12 PM, Faré wrote:
We could adopt the same algorithm as dpkg or rpm uses for comparing version.
I once implemented it in shell script. Could do it in Lisp...
I confess to not really knowing this algorithm (I haven't built an RPM in a long time), nor having any guess about whether or not it would break previous :version dependencies.
See attached file (supposes ASCII, will fail on EBCDIC). Add:
(defun version<= (v1 v2) (ecase (compare-rpm-versions v1 v2) ((< =) t) ((> nil) nil))) (defmethod version-satisfies ((v string) (vmin string)) (version<= vmin v))
Do you think we should use that?
Anyone know how backward compatible this would be?
It's backwards compatible with the current version-satisfies indeed.
Are you sure?
I don't think so.
Current ASDF version-satisfies treats the first digit specially.
To match a version spec of the form x.y.z with a.b.c, a must be equal to x, not >=. then b.c must be >= y.z
At least that's how I read it. Probably this is a job for a unit test....
Also, I guess I think it's a little weird that
(version-satisfies "1.2.3-edgar" "1.2.3-dev")
Any reason in particular to choose lexicographic order for non-numeric strings instead of requiring a match? Works for 1.2.3a, 1.2.3b, etc., I suppose, but "dev" seems like a weird case (perhaps one simply to be avoided).
Frankly, given that this can be odd, I'd be just as happy insisting on
integer ( . integer )*
as the syntax for version strings and raising an error if the strings aren't of the right form.
Indeed, I think insisting on some form for the version strings (and validating it to the limited extent possible) would be very helpful --- some of the utility of :version is vitiated by having people put in strings that don't fit the convention.
Best, R
-
Faré -
Nikodemus Siivola -
Robert Goldman