Hi guys, Sorry for the late repose, Hope I haven't missed the review window.
I've read through the proposal for the versioning, and I feel that there is an over complication there. I would suggest something like this for specifying the version: If you want to have latest version of SwiftyJSON (you don't even care about when major version: .package(url: "http://github.com/SwiftyJSON";) If you want to have latest of major 1 .package(url: "http://github.com/SwiftyJSON";, from: "1") if you want to have latest of minor 1.5 .package(url: "http://github.com/SwiftyJSON";, from: "1.5) if you want to specify exact 1.5.2 (but the author might choose to be maintaining 1.5.2-patch1, 1.5.2-patch2 and co..) .package(url: "http://github.com/SwiftyJSON";, from: "1.5.2") Adopting this structure I think removes the need to have a uptoNextMajor & uptoNextMinor which behavior I find not intuitive. -m. On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:30 PM Rick Ballard via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > Proposal link: > > > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0158-package-manager-manifest-api-redesign.md > > Hi Xiaodi, > > Thanks for your review comments! There are indeed a few mistakes here; > we're going to revise the proposal appropriately, and assuming that nothing > else comes up to cause us to reject this proposal, it will wind up > "accepted with revisions" tomorrow. > > Specifically: > > – .uptoNextMajor() and .uptoNextMinor were miscapitalized; we will correct > them to .upToNextMajor() and .upToNextMinor(). > > – Dave Sweeris' point about this reading wrong in English as > .upToNextMajor("x.y.z") (vs. of "x.y.z".upToNextMajor) makes sense to us > too. As a result, we're going to clarify this by changing it to > .upToNextMajor(after:"x.y.z") and .upToNextMinor(after:"x.y.z"). > > – We will get rid of .only() in favor of .exact(). > > – We will remove the .package(url:,branch:) and .package(url:,revision:) > initializers. They duplicate the functionality provided by the .branch() > and .revision() cases without adding any additional value. > > – We are still planning to keep .package(url:,from:), however, even though > it duplicates the functionality of the .upToNextMajor() case. The > duplication is somewhat undesirable for the reason you mention, but we > think it's worth it in this case for two reasons: > > * We want to encourage this form of version specification to be used when > possible, to establish good norms around semantic versioning in our > ecosystem. Calling it out as a special initializer makes it more prominent. > > * Since we hope that this form of version specification will be used most > of the time, we still think that it's worthwhile to make it really quick > and easy to type. Other package managers also have special syntax (e.g. ~>) > to make the common version specifiers quick and easy. We want to stay > swift-y and descriptive, but .upToNextMajor() is pretty annoying to type > every time. > > - Rick > > On Mar 11, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-build-dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Ankit Aggarwal via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1, although I don’t know why we're supporting this: > > // 1.5.8 ..< 2.0.0.package(url: "/SwiftyJSON", from: "1.5.8"), > > when, at least as far as I can tell, this: > > // 1.5.8 ..< 2.0.0.package(url: "/SwiftyJSON", .uptoNextMajor("1.5.8")), > > does the same thing, and the spelling is, at least to me, clearer as well. > Dunno, maybe the “from” version is a term of art that I’m just not familiar > with. > > > Hi David, > > Thank you for the review. > > It is true that `from` and `.uptoNextMajor` are exactly same. We think > that the most widely used requirement will be `.uptoNextMajor`, so we > wanted to provide a shorthand for it. > > > Kind of a late reply, but overall I think the proposal looks good with the > exception of some of these `Requirement` vs. shorthand dichotomies. It > looks like the following will be synonyms: > > ``` > .package(url: "/SwiftyJSON", branch: "develop") > .package(url: "/SwiftyJSON", .branch("develop")) > ``` > > ...as well as... > > ``` > .package(url: "/SwiftyJSON", revision: > "e74b07278b926c9ec6f9643455ea00d1ce04a021") > .package(url: "/SwiftyJSON", > .revision("e74b07278b926c9ec6f9643455ea00d1ce04a021")) > ``` > > It seems odd that there are two subtly different but equivalent ways to > spell the same thing like that. But I get that there are possibilities for > chaining made available with the latter notation and that the former was > promised in a fairly new proposal that's been approved. Where it gets more > unsatisfactory, IMO, is that > > ``` > .package(url: "/SwiftyJSON", .only("1.5.8")) > .package(url: "/SwiftyJSON", .exact("1.5.8")) > ``` > > also seem to mean the same thing. Here, this is actively confusing, > because every user will inevitably scratch their head trying to parse out > the difference. I also share Dave's concern about > > ``` > .package(url: "/SwiftyJSON", from: "1.5.8") > .package(url: "/SwiftyJSON", .uptoNextMajor("1.5.8")) > ``` > > There is no intuition that would tell a user that the two are the same; > after all, `uptoNextMinor` also starts "from" its argument. I understand > that the latter is wordier, but it is not such a grave burden that the > argument label couldn't be rewritten also as `uptoNextMajor`. > > While we're on the topic, the standard library spelling is `upTo` rather > than `upto`, and while it's nitpicky I think it's important to go with the > former given that "upto" is not a single word in standard English. If we > wanted this to read more grammatically, consider also `.upToNextMajor(from: > "1.5.8")`. > > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
