* [CONCERN] Orgmode version string
@ 2010-10-28 12:40 Jambunathan K
2010-10-28 14:06 ` Bastien
2010-10-28 21:57 ` Carsten Dominik
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jambunathan K @ 2010-10-28 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
version-to-list compatible. I would like to reiterate it.
My real concern is that 7.02 would be deemed as equivalent to 7.2
internally by the versioning subsystem and this is likely to clash with
user's point of view. A user would *definitely* assume 7.02 as different
from 7.2 and in all probability swear that former is inferior to the
later.
Please confirm what I am saying by evalling this:
#+begin_src emacs-lisp
(version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.2"))
#+end_src
Ignore this mail if it is already taken care of. Needless to say, I have
ELPA-tarballs in mind when I say this.
Jambunathan K.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [CONCERN] Orgmode version string
2010-10-28 12:40 [CONCERN] Orgmode version string Jambunathan K
@ 2010-10-28 14:06 ` Bastien
2010-10-28 16:27 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-28 18:16 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-28 21:57 ` Carsten Dominik
1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Bastien @ 2010-10-28 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jambunathan K; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
> I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
> tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
> version-to-list compatible. I would like to reiterate it.
>
> My real concern is that 7.02 would be deemed as equivalent to 7.2
> internally by the versioning subsystem and this is likely to clash with
> user's point of view. A user would *definitely* assume 7.02 as different
> from 7.2 and in all probability swear that former is inferior to the
> later.
>
> Please confirm what I am saying by evalling this:
>
> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.2"))
> #+end_src
I confirm.
> Ignore this mail if it is already taken care of. Needless to say, I have
> ELPA-tarballs in mind when I say this.
Another way is to make Emacs more liberal about version names.
Can you suggest a new default for `version-regexp-alist' so that
7.01 is considered older than 7.10?
(version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.2"))
being t is not intuitive.
--
Bastien
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [CONCERN] Orgmode version string
2010-10-28 14:06 ` Bastien
@ 2010-10-28 16:27 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-28 18:16 ` Jambunathan K
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jambunathan K @ 2010-10-28 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bastien; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Hello Bastien
Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> writes:
> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
>> tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
>> version-to-list compatible. I would like to reiterate it.
>>
>> My real concern is that 7.02 would be deemed as equivalent to 7.2
>> internally by the versioning subsystem and this is likely to clash with
>> user's point of view. A user would *definitely* assume 7.02 as different
>> from 7.2 and in all probability swear that former is inferior to the
>> later.
>>
>> Please confirm what I am saying by evalling this:
>>
>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
>> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.2"))
>> #+end_src
>
> I confirm.
>
>> Ignore this mail if it is already taken care of. Needless to say, I have
>> ELPA-tarballs in mind when I say this.
>
> Another way is to make Emacs more liberal about version names.
>
> Can you suggest a new default for `version-regexp-alist' so that
> 7.01 is considered older than 7.10?
I don't think I can sell this to emacs-devel with any success. It's not
really worth it.
I think I have made a sensible argument (or atleast recorded my
opinion). I will leave things at that.
>
> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.2"))
> being t is not intuitive.
Jambunathan K.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [CONCERN] Orgmode version string
2010-10-28 14:06 ` Bastien
2010-10-28 16:27 ` Jambunathan K
@ 2010-10-28 18:16 ` Jambunathan K
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jambunathan K @ 2010-10-28 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bastien; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Bastien
> Can you suggest a new default for `version-regexp-alist' so that
> 7.01 is considered older than 7.10?
I assume there is a typo here. Just for the sake of clarification:
(version-list-= (version-to-list "7.01") (version-to-list "7.1")) is t
(version-list-< (version-to-list "7.01") (version-to-list "7.10")) is t
Note that the following difference in above expressions
1. '=' and '<'
2. 7.1 and 7.10
Jambunathan K>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [CONCERN] Orgmode version string
2010-10-28 12:40 [CONCERN] Orgmode version string Jambunathan K
2010-10-28 14:06 ` Bastien
@ 2010-10-28 21:57 ` Carsten Dominik
2010-10-29 1:36 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-29 13:06 ` Jambunathan K
1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Carsten Dominik @ 2010-10-28 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jambunathan K; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Hi Jambunathan,
On Oct 28, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Jambunathan K wrote:
>
> I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
> tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
> version-to-list compatible. I would like to reiterate it.
>
> My real concern is that 7.02 would be deemed as equivalent to 7.2
> internally by the versioning subsystem and this is likely to clash
> with
> user's point of view. A user would *definitely* assume 7.02 as
> different
> from 7.2 and in all probability swear that former is inferior to the
> later.
(version-to-list "7.02") -> (7 2)
(version-to-list "7.20") -> (7 20)
so it seems to me that if we keep two-digit numbers, there will be no
problem at all.
#+begin_src emacs-lisp
(version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.20"))
#+end_src
- Carsten
>
> Please confirm what I am saying by evalling this:
>
> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.2"))
> #+end_src
>
> Ignore this mail if it is already taken care of. Needless to say, I
> have
> ELPA-tarballs in mind when I say this.
>
> Jambunathan K.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [CONCERN] Orgmode version string
2010-10-28 21:57 ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2010-10-29 1:36 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-29 13:06 ` Jambunathan K
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jambunathan K @ 2010-10-29 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Carsten
>
> (version-to-list "7.02") -> (7 2)
> (version-to-list "7.20") -> (7 20)
>
> so it seems to me that if we keep two-digit numbers, there will be no
> problem at all.
>
> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.20"))
> #+end_src
Yes, I agree.
Jambunathan K.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [CONCERN] Orgmode version string
2010-10-28 21:57 ` Carsten Dominik
2010-10-29 1:36 ` Jambunathan K
@ 2010-10-29 13:06 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-29 14:51 ` Carsten Dominik
2010-10-29 14:53 ` Bastien
1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jambunathan K @ 2010-10-29 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Carsten
> Hi Jambunathan,
>
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Jambunathan K wrote:
>
>>
>> I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
>> tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
>> version-to-list compatible. I would like to reiterate it.
>>
>> My real concern is that 7.02 would be deemed as equivalent to 7.2
>> internally by the versioning subsystem and this is likely to clash
>> with
>> user's point of view. A user would *definitely* assume 7.02 as
>> different
>> from 7.2 and in all probability swear that former is inferior to the
>> later.
>
> (version-to-list "7.02") -> (7 2)
> (version-to-list "7.20") -> (7 20)
>
> so it seems to me that if we keep two-digit numbers, there will be no
> problem at all.
>
> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.20"))
> #+end_src
>
> - Carsten
>
Now that release-7.02 is out, I am a bit disappointed that a ELPA-tar
named org-7.02.tar would be unusable.
The reason is "7.02" doesn't round-trip well and package manager is
allergic to such a choice. Verify this for yourself.
#+begin_src emacs-lisp
(package-version-join (version-to-list "7.02"))
#+end_src
If you don't mind sharing, I am curious what made you still go with 7.02
scheme.
Jambunathan K.
>>
>> Please confirm what I am saying by evalling this:
>>
>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
>> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.2"))
>> #+end_src
>>
>> Ignore this mail if it is already taken care of. Needless to say, I
>> have
>> ELPA-tarballs in mind when I say this.
>>
>> Jambunathan K.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [CONCERN] Orgmode version string
2010-10-29 13:06 ` Jambunathan K
@ 2010-10-29 14:51 ` Carsten Dominik
2010-10-29 17:53 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-29 14:53 ` Bastien
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Carsten Dominik @ 2010-10-29 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jambunathan K; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
On Oct 29, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Jambunathan K wrote:
>
> Carsten
>
>> Hi Jambunathan,
>>
>> On Oct 28, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Jambunathan K wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
>>> tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
>>> version-to-list compatible. I would like to reiterate it.
>>>
>>> My real concern is that 7.02 would be deemed as equivalent to 7.2
>>> internally by the versioning subsystem and this is likely to clash
>>> with
>>> user's point of view. A user would *definitely* assume 7.02 as
>>> different
>>> from 7.2 and in all probability swear that former is inferior to the
>>> later.
>>
>> (version-to-list "7.02") -> (7 2)
>> (version-to-list "7.20") -> (7 20)
>>
>> so it seems to me that if we keep two-digit numbers, there will be no
>> problem at all.
>>
>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
>> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.20"))
>> #+end_src
>>
>> - Carsten
>>
>
> Now that release-7.02 is out, I am a bit disappointed that a ELPA-tar
> named org-7.02.tar would be unusable.
>
> The reason is "7.02" doesn't round-trip well and package manager is
> allergic to such a choice. Verify this for yourself.
>
> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> (package-version-join (version-to-list "7.02"))
> #+end_src
>
> If you don't mind sharing, I am curious what made you still go with
> 7.02
> scheme.
Well, most certainly not because I wanted to disappoint you.
On the contrary, I am really greateful for the ground work
you have laid to make us go with the packaging system.
So the reason must be that I have not read/digested the
numbering thread carefully enough. What I remember from it
is:
- do not use something like 7.02a, because the letter will defeat
version number testing
- from our most recent exchange I felt that you agree that
7.02 will behave correctly when compared with the
version- functions. So I actually understood that
you agreed with me.
The reason why I use 7.02 at all is just because I think it
is pretty when one is expecting 2-digit release numbers.
The release file numbers line up nicely in a directory listing.
Things like this.
Do you have the patience to summarize the arguments for me?
I will go with 7.3 for the next release if this is what is
really needed.
Greetings
- Carsten
>
> Jambunathan K.
>
>>>
>>> Please confirm what I am saying by evalling this:
>>>
>>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
>>> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.2"))
>>> #+end_src
>>>
>>> Ignore this mail if it is already taken care of. Needless to say, I
>>> have
>>> ELPA-tarballs in mind when I say this.
>>>
>>> Jambunathan K.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>>> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [CONCERN] Orgmode version string
2010-10-29 13:06 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-29 14:51 ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2010-10-29 14:53 ` Bastien
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Bastien @ 2010-10-29 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jambunathan K; +Cc: emacs-orgmode, Carsten Dominik
Hi Jambunathan,
Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
> Now that release-7.02 is out, I am a bit disappointed that a ELPA-tar
> named org-7.02.tar would be unusable.
Let's fix this by having a conversation with the ELPA maintainers.
Can you start a discussion off-list with me, Carsten, ELPA maintainers
and Chong?
I'm willing to better understand what we have to do and why.
Thanks,
--
Bastien
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [CONCERN] Orgmode version string
2010-10-29 14:51 ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2010-10-29 17:53 ` Jambunathan K
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jambunathan K @ 2010-10-29 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Carsten
You haven't misunderstood my arguments at all.
>
> - do not use something like 7.02a, because the letter will defeat
> version number testing
> - from our most recent exchange I felt that you agree that
> 7.02 will behave correctly when compared with the
> version- functions. So I actually understood that
> you agreed with me.
I thought you would go with 7.20 :-) and I didn't see any problem with
that.
>
> The reason why I use 7.02 at all is just because I think it
> is pretty when one is expecting 2-digit release numbers.
> The release file numbers line up nicely in a directory listing.
> Things like this.
>
> Do you have the patience to summarize the arguments for me?
It is better to avoid a '0' prefix. If you build a org-7.02.tar and try
installing using the package manager, you would know what I mean.
> I will go with 7.3 for the next release if this is what is
> really needed.
It is improper for me to say what version you should use. I am careful
that I wouldn't step in to that territory.
All I can say is that C-h v version-to-list and C-h v
version-regexp-alist are your friends. There is a range of schemes
available and surely one such scheme will suit your tastes.
As for snapshot releases it is better rely on the YYYYMMDD scheme for
packaging. M-x org-version can continue to report git magic numbers in
the version string.
Jambunathan K.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-10-29 17:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-10-28 12:40 [CONCERN] Orgmode version string Jambunathan K
2010-10-28 14:06 ` Bastien
2010-10-28 16:27 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-28 18:16 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-28 21:57 ` Carsten Dominik
2010-10-29 1:36 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-29 13:06 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-29 14:51 ` Carsten Dominik
2010-10-29 17:53 ` Jambunathan K
2010-10-29 14:53 ` Bastien
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public 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).