I don’t get this. I do a project and I have version 4.3. Then I make a major changes i.e. change API without backwards compatibility and create version 5.0. Now 5.0 is stable, but if someone depends on my package’s stable version, he has to rewrite his code, otherwise his package is insta-broken. I think this has to be also discussed with Pharo developers, who missed the main conversation, here it is: http://forum.world.st/Searching-for-a-Roassal2-version-td4833461.html In short: we are arguing on depending on numbered versions vs symbolic. Uko
|
this is why I do not recommend the use of #stable in dependency declarations (I already discussed this in pharo-dev). according to Dale, the better way to handle this would be: - you can use, for example 3.? as dependency, then it will take latest 3 (I never tried this and I’m not sure if it actually works) - you are highly recommended to adopt Seaside convention: they have symbolic versions for #release3, #release3.1, etc. probably a bit more of work, but it works fine. - and of course, you can use a fixed version number (for example: 3.1.1) depending on #stable is #wrong! Esteban
|
Maybe it’s not a good approach, but I really enjoy Bundler specs, http://bundler.io/gemfile.html. They have this notation ~> which allows you to specify, that you want to auto advance parches or minor versions, but not minor or major versions respectively. If X.X. works like this, I really like that. Also if thing’s work like that we don’t need this release symbolics, because 3.1. should work as #release3.1, right? Also is anybody using semantic versioning. Because if you subclass ConfigurationOf, you are forced to use it, and that’s very nice. Uko
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
On 23-06-15 15:13, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
> depending on #stable is #wrong! The one situation where depending on #stable is ok is where we talk about a Pharo 4 version where new development is only on Pharo 5. Stable is then only a moving target on Pharo 5, not on 4. Stephan |
IMHO project’s version should be orthogonal to pharo versions as much as possible.
Uko > On 23 Jun 2015, at 15:49, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 23-06-15 15:13, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > >> depending on #stable is #wrong! > > The one situation where depending on #stable is ok is > where we talk about a Pharo 4 version where > new development is only on Pharo 5. Stable is then > only a moving target on Pharo 5, not on 4. > > Stephan > > > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |