Sean, The Metacello Preview will support semantic versioning system as well as the current metacello versioning system ... and one will be able to choose on a project by project basis.
I have all of the version comparison operators implemented for semantic versioning, but at the time I did the implementation there was some ambiguity about sort order for some of the version components (specifically related to pre-release and build versions), but I looked at the spec the other day and it seems that they seem to have clarified the wording ... which means I have to revisit my implementation:) Doesn't help with ensuring that developers increment the correct version component at the right time:) Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Sean P. DeNigris" <s...@clipperadams.com> | To: pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:50:37 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Metacello configuration conventions | | Camillo Bruni-3 wrote | > I liked ruby-gems approach more than the one in Metacello. You usually | > specify | > a major version (as under linux) for your dependency. | | It seems they're using semantic versioning, which is *awesome*, but can we | depend on the convention being followed? I've been pushing to get the tools | (e.g. Versionner) to use semantic version numbers by default (i.e. new | bugfix version, new enhancement version, new incompatible version) | | | | ----- | Cheers, | Sean | -- | View this message in context: | http://forum.world.st/Metacello-configuration-conventions-tp4681777p4682036.html | Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. | |
