>From semver.org: Example: 1.0.0-alpha < 1.0.0-alpha.1 < 1.0.0-alpha.beta < 1.0.0-beta < 1.0.0-beta.2 < 1.0.0-beta.11 < 1.0.0-rc.1 < 1.0.0
Regards, Erik On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 8:38 PM Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: > On 17 Nov 2021, at 13:31, Robert Dodier wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:45 AM Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote: > > I favor something like this because it would be nice to have prerelease > versions of ASDF that perform version checks properly. > > What I mean is, if we are going to add a feature in version 3.4, right now > that would be in a prerelease version with a version number of something > like 3.3.5.22 > > It would be a lot better for realistic testing if we could instead use > 3.4.0-alpha1 or 3.4.0-1 and have ASDF know that 3.4.0-1 comes before 3.4.0, > not after. > > Hi Robert, hi everyone. I haven't been following closely, but while > you are working out details, let me just mention that I recommend > against version numbers that require special interpretation to > discover their ordering, e.g. 3.4.0-1 < 3.4.0. > > Mostly I'm just thinking that somebody's not going to get the memo > (it's usually me). > > For what it's worth, and all the best. > > I guess that would be an argument for using something more obvious than -, > like the string alpha so 3.4.0-alpha1 or 3.4.0alpha1 instead of 3.4.0-1 > since there the meaning should be relatively obvious. > > My feeling is that if a user misinterprets 3.4.0-1, then shame on me. But > if a user misinterprets 3.4.0alpha1 then shame on them. > > I'm not sure how that would align with semver... > -- Bye, Erik. http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
