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

Oh wait -- I think maybe I wasn't clear. I'm proposing keeping only
the planet version numbers (and getting rid of the other number). The
planet version number is the only number planet is concerned with --
the other number is just decoration, as far as planet is concerned. I
don't see why it needs to be as prominent as it is. If it is that
important to your package, it is easy to put it in the one-line
description that shows up all over the place.

Robby

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Neil Van Dyke <neil at neilvandyke.org> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>