Re: [iterate-devel] Fwd: if-first-iteration, a little better vers ion as an arch patch
Peter Van Eynde wrote:
am i right when i assume there's no source control for iterate currently and the arch/tla source tree (at iterate-devel@common-lisp.net--2004/iterate--main--1.4) This seem to be the case, this and the lack of a version bump in the 'newest' tar.gz's asd file makes life difficult for this debian maintainer.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand. You seem to miss two things: o one is some update at common-lisp.net, in the main-1.4 branch. I can't help with that, only people with write access can. o the other is some means to see whether there's something new in the .tgz which I send out? That I can answer. + I didn't feel like changing (defconst version "1.4" "Current version of Iterate") into "1.4.x" for every patch that I send. I fount it ok to have only major.minor, not x.y.z. And what I sent out last year are mostly bugfixes, so there wasn't a need to update minor. Anyway, my idea about how things work is that whoever puts my stuff into Arch@common-lisp.net will automatically cause a new Arch number to be generated, so my own numbering schemes are moot anyway. 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 would you like to have + change (defconst version to "1.4.23"), in sync with my own internal RCS numbers? + 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? + not change this Lisp variable, until I really change the API or functionality? + name the .tgz archives differently than e.g. iterate-jch.tgz? + none of the above, you were not talking about that at all. Would you please clarify? Jörg Höhle.
Hello people, On 1/16/06, Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril <Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle@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|
participants (2)
-
Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril -
Peter Van Eynde