[plt-scheme] proposal for indicating planet package version numbers

From: Neil Van Dyke (neil at neilvandyke.org)
Date: Sun Aug 31 12:00:55 EDT 2008

Let's say that PLaneT decided to not to show the non-PLaneT version 
numbers of a package.  In that case, I think there would be even more 
reason not to confuse matters with ".".

What I find illuminating is the desire of people to get rid of 
non-PLaneT version numbers altogether.  That would explain the desire to 
use "." in the PLaneT version numbers: these people care only about PLT 
Scheme, so non-PLaneT version numbers are extraneous, and they would 
like to use the conventional "." in the only version number they have 
(the PLaneT one).  I think I now understand that perspective.

However having only PLaneT version numbers is not well-suited to the 
needs of people who might want to use and contribute to Scheme 
implementations in addition to PLT ones.  If you hide the non-PLaneT 
version number and make the PLaneT version number look like a non-PLaneT 
version number (by using "."), that creates an unjustifiable mess.

I never thought of PLT as not playing well with others!  That role is 
traditionally reserved for a different three-letter institution. :)

Jens Axel Soegaard wrote at 08/31/2008 11:21 AM:
> I read Grant's suggestion differently.
> Currently there are two sets of version numbers.
>   1. The PLaneT version (major + minor version)
>   2. The user version
> Removing the special status of the user version makes sense to me.
> For the few packages that need it, the author can state it in, say,
> the first line of the package description.
> /Jens Axel

Posted on the users mailing list.