Faré wrote: >>> While I think we should indeed soon release 3.2, I believe that it is >>> not so urgent that it can't wait for a few more useful changes, >>> especially since we do provide backward compatibility functions for >>> the old API. So I propose we release a 3.1.5 for now, and do a few >>> more changes before we actually cut a 3.2. >> I wasn't clear: I don't mean that we need to do a 3.2 release at this >> very moment, just that these changes are not fully compatible, so are >> worthy of a "greater than patch level" release. >> > Well, we do provide a backward compatible API; > but it's true that the behavior on Windows has slightly changed.
We provide a backward compatible API, but we don't have a *forward* compatible one, because of the new XDG functions. > > On the other hand, we have accumulated enough bug fixes and features since > last October, including support for a new implementation (clasp) > to warrant a release soon. Release numbers are not a scarce resource, > so if you believe this requires a 3.2 release now, that just means that > the further changes I'd like will have to be for a 3.3 release. > >> On the other hand, maybe we need to have 3.2.0.1 be the next thing we >> push, and call it a release candidate. It may be that the release will >> have to be 3.2.1, but I could live with that. >> > That's how we did the 3.1 release: pre-releases as 3.1.0.x, > and release as 3.1.1. It seems to have worked out well — > well except for immediately followeing it with a 3.1.2 for a bug fix :-(. > >> What do firm believers in semantic versioning do about this? Just >> always have their release be x.y.z when they want x.y, so that they can >> have a release candidate? Or do they do something like x.y.rcz? That >> would require a change to VERSION-SATISFIES... >> > We could specially parse rc as "-1", "beta" as "-2", "alpha" as -3, etc, > but that sounds like dubious over-engineering to me. Agreed. OK, the next time I push, I will push 3.2.0.1, because I'd like to have people be able to start checking for version 3.2 for the new XDG functions (and eventually the new test-operation functions). Should we push just asdf-3.2 or also uiop-3.2 (since the new XDG functions are properly UIOP)? thanks, r
