From: Adam Porter <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [ANN] org-ql 0.4 released Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 18:59:15 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> Tim Cross <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > I don't disagree with most of what you write. I do think a big part of > the problem is inconsistency and poor practices by some maintainers > which is at the hart of the issue. Sometimes it seems that package > maintainers put too much emphasis on getting the latest package out and > forget about the stability and dependencies that users have. > > All of this leaves me wondering why the ELPA system doens't adopt a > semantic versioning scheme and configure the repositories to > keep/maintain previous versions. Emacs was very late to the whole > 'package' concept and it is a little disappointing that more time wasn't > invested in understanding the challenges and solutions implemented by > other systems like deb, rpm, CPAN, Java, ruby, python etc. There is > little unique to the Emacs environment that other environments haven't > had to resolve one way or the other. The problems you identified in the first paragraph are why the solution identified in the second paragraph doesn't work (for this case; I like SemVer in general). > However, a semantic version does provide more information than > something like version 20200123, which just tells me the release > date. At least with complaint semantic versions I can have a better > idea as to whether the changes are just a bug fix, an enhancement or > major API changes that may break existing dependencies. Yes, and that's why I like it, too. But we can't make other developers use it. Even if MELPA required SemVer-like numbering, nothing would stop package maintainers from incrementing major-only version numbers. It's their code. Developing with proper use of semantic versioning is a discipline that requires extra diligence. It's rarely more fun, and for most Emacs packages, it's not worth the trouble. Most packages are dependents rather than dependencies, leaves at the ends of the branches, and they can be freely upgraded without breaking anything else. Most packages' interoperability with other packages is minor. If SemVer were required, MELPA would probably have 5-10% of the packages it does today. The lax, welcoming approach used by MELPA has drawbacks, but it also has tremendous benefits, and I think it's to credit for much of the vibrancy of the Emacs package "ecosystem" and community today. The problem I'm writing about here is that users' perception of MELPA Stable doesn't match the reality. Discussions about how to change MELPA Stable and MELPA versioning for the better have been going on for years. Ultimately that doesn't matter, because package authors can do whatever they want. We should help users understand and accept the technical reality--and MELPA Stable misleads them, so it should be removed. As I posted in my proposal on the MELPA tracker, we can pursue better technical solutions then, ones that may be more in line with the limitations of the platform. If you're interested in the topic, please join the discussions on the MELPA tracker.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-25 0:59 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-01-24 1:03 Adam Porter 2020-01-24 13:04 ` Michael Alan Dorman 2020-01-24 23:24 ` Adam Porter 2020-01-25 0:24 ` Tim Cross 2020-01-25 0:59 ` Adam Porter [this message] 2020-01-25 3:08 ` Michael Alan Dorman 2020-01-25 8:08 ` Adam Porter 2020-04-22 19:31 ` David R 2020-04-23 2:47 ` Adam Porter
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: https://www.orgmode.org/ * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [ANN] org-ql 0.4 released' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).