Raymond Toy wrote: >>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> writes: > > Robert> Raymond Toy wrote: > >>>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> writes: > >> > Robert> Raymond Toy wrote: > >> >> If this is the first release candidate, can you explain the > difference > >> >> between this and the 3.0.2 that was released a month or so ago? > I'm a > >> >> bit confused now on the numbering. > >> > Robert> I have been assuming that the numbering is: > >> > Robert> x.y.z > >> > Robert> x = major revision -- I do not expect to preside over one of > these! > Robert> ASDF 2 was a major clean-up. ASDF 3 added substantial > improvements in > Robert> dependency tracking, etc. > >> > Robert> y = change to API > >> > Robert> z = patch release > >> > Robert> This is what is enshrined in the ASDF versioning predicates, so I > Robert> figured I would stick with that. > >> > >> Thanks. Previously, I think cmucl only updated on x.y, ignoring z. > >> But with asdf 3, I think we updated on x.y.z (3.0.2, in particular). > >> > >> I was just wondering now when cmucl should update its copy of asdf. > >> And in particular should cmucl take 3.0.2.1? I have not run into any > >> issues with 3.0.2, but I only use a small number of asdf systems. > > Robert> Implementations should *not* update on tags like 3.0.2.1. > > Robert> I will *try* to make this clear by not setting the "release" tag > to > Robert> point to them. E.g., the current release tag still points to > 3.0.2. > > Thanks for clarifying this. I'll refrain from updating unless there's > a "release". BTW, what is this "release" tag? Is it in git? If not, > that would be nice to have, because right now, I just see a bunch of > numerical tags corresponding to the version (and various upstream and > debian tags). > > Ray > >
Yes, there's a release tag. You can see it in the gitweb: http://common-lisp.net/gitweb?p=projects/asdf/asdf.git
