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

From: Neil Van Dyke (neil at neilvandyke.org)
Date: Sat Aug 30 21:47:59 EDT 2008

If that would work for PLaneT, that would be excellent.

It seems like there's definitely value in having PLaneT know for each 
version with which previous versions the version is API 
backward-compatible.  The PLaneT version numbers seem like an easy, if 
imperfect, way to do that in most cases.  I don't yet know how well that 
will work in practice with the large number of small, interconnected 
libraries that I'd like to do (in which a developer would "require" one 
library and typically pull in several dependencies as well).

Robby Findler wrote at 08/30/2008 09:36 PM:
> In my opinion, the non-PLaneT version number should just go away
> (except possibly being mentioned in the documentation or release notes
> for packages where the planet package is a re-packaging of something
> else). For most packages, the number is irrelevant and, as you point
> out, for others it is confusing.
> Would that also satisfy you?
> Robby
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Neil Van Dyke <neil at neilvandyke.org> wrote:
>> To reduce confusion between PLaneT "package versions" and the version
>> numbers of software packages that happen to be packaged as PLaneT
>> packages... I'd like to strongly suggest that instead of having the PLaneT
>> Web pages say this:
>> Package
>> version   Version
>> 1.1       0.3
>> that they instead say this:
>> Package
>> version   Version
>> (1 1)     0.3
>> Basically, I want to never, ever see "." in a PLaneT package version
>> number.  "." is already used in the version numbers of most software
>> packages ever written, which means it terrific for distinguishing the two
>> kinds of version numbers.  TThe sexp format proposed above is also a good
>> mnemonic for the "Scheme" flavor of version number, as opposed to the
>> "normal" flavor.  The sexp format also fits the different ways that PLaneT
>> package version numbers are used, better than a string with dots in it
>> would, and "require" forms don't use dots anyway.
>> If someone could make this change, I also suggest clearer terminological
>> conventions, such as saying either "PLaneT Version" and "Software Version",
>> and never simply saying "version".  Or invent a new word for "PLaneT
>> version" -- something like "verid", which can be selected in "require" forms
>> and such by a "verspec" form, only perhaps not so dorky-sounding.
>> I think I suggested this before, but I don't recall seeing a rationale for
>> doing it the current way.
>> --
>> http://www.neilvandyke.org/
>> _________________________________________________
>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Posted on the users mailing list.