Faré <[email protected]> writes: > Many people have suggested making the ASDF 2.27 release an ASDF 3.0 > release instead. > > I was previously hesitant, wanting to signal that I preserve > compatibility, and not making it a release that doesn't preserve > version-satisfies, since the major number is different. But I realize > that (a) my code may be the only one that ever checks the version of > ASDF, and I'm having to update it anyway, and (b) considering at the > list of new features and the major rewrite of previous features, it's > actually a bigger change in the making than there was from ASDF 1 to > ASDF 2. > > Therefore I'm changing my mind and I am considering calling the next > release ASDF 3, with feature :asdf3 instead of :asdf2.27. > > If you have objections, speak in the next few days. What if asdf-2.27 is treated as a release-candidate for asdf3? Because there are many changes, and nobody tests git versions. Make the feature :asdf3, but the version 2.27.
-- With best regards, Stas. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
