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:
Hi
Sorry 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
kind
YYYYMMDD
Are better than
major.minor.small.itsy.bitsy.bit
What do you think?
All the best
Marco
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 4:16 AM Mark Evenson <even...@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