On Nov 21, 2012, at 8:16 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > Doru, > > I guess because I don't agree that the following statement would be true: > > there will never be a regular version named 'stable' > > I know that in git I can have a branch named 'stable' and a tag named > 'stable' and that causes problems ... for me. > > Besides, the set of symbolic versions is not restricted to #stable and > #development ... one could choose to define a symbolic version called > #default or #'1.0'…
I would not. I would like that Metacello constraints the space. Because we should have less option and more structured supported scenarios. > I intend for there to be two namespaces the linear version namespace and the > symbolic version namespace to make a clear distinction between the two, > because they have different semantics. Ok it was not clear to me that they have a different semantics. > One shouldn't be surprised that when version #stable of project foo is loaded > the current version of the project is '1.0' on one day and '1.1' on the next. How this can be possible? Ok you mean because the guy changed the stable definition. > Or when they load #'1.0' that the current version is '1.0-beta.19'. > > This distinction is obviously not important to you and I am okay with that:) > > Dale > > ----- Original Message ----- > | From: "Tudor Girba" <[email protected]> > | To: [email protected] > | Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:50:37 AM > | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Metacello Why symbolicversion and not simply > tagged version:? > | > | The question is the same I asked when you introduced them :): > | Why are symbolic versions treated differently from normal ones? > | > | This has two dimensions: > | - why have a different pragma at all? > | - why have the distinction between symbols and versions, given that > | there will never be a regular version named 'stable'? > | > | Cheers, > | Doru > | > | > | On 21 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Dale Henrichs <[email protected]> wrote: > | > | > Stef, > | > > | > I'm not sure which context you are talking about ... the symbolic > | > version #stable can be used as an argument anywhere that the > | > linear version '1.1' can be used, so I think that it is true that > | > symbolic versions can be used in a #version: message ... > | > > | > So I guess I need a little more context ... > | > > | > Dale > | > > | > ----- Original Message ----- > | > | From: "Stéphane Ducasse" <[email protected]> > | > | To: "Pharo Development" <[email protected]> > | > | Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 2:19:02 PM > | > | Subject: [Pharo-project] Metacello Why symbolicversion and not > | > | simply tagged version:? > | > | > | > | Dale > | > | > | > | in my goal to reduce the complexity of metacello, I'm wondering > | > | why > | > | symbolic versions could not be expressed as version: > | > | > | > | because > | > | > | > | version: #stable > | > | version: #development > | > | > | > | are symbolic versions and there is no clash possible with > | > | > | > | version: '1.1' > | > | > | > | Stef > | > | > | > | > | > > | > | -- > | www.tudorgirba.com > | > | "Things happen when they happen, > | not when you talk about them happening." > | > | > | >
