Karl Eichwalder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Ouch. Why does the robot care about version names at all? > > It must know about the sequences; this is important for merging > issues. IIRC, we have at least these sequences supported by the > robot: > > 1.2 -> 1.2.1 -> 1.2.2 -> 1.3 etc. > > 1.2 -> 1.2a -> 1.2b -> 1.3 > > 1.2 -> 1.3-pre1 -> 1.3-pre2 -> 1.3 > > 1.2 -> 1.3-b1 -> 1.3-b2 -> 1.3
Thanks for the clarification, Karl. But as a maintainer of a project that tries to use the robot, I must say that I'm not happy about this. If the robot absolutely must be able to collate versions, then it should be smarter about it and support a larger array of formats in use out there. See `dpkg' for an example of how it can be done, although the TP robot certainly doesn't need to do all that `dpkg' does. This way, unless I'm missing something, the robot seems to be in the position to dictate its very narrow-minded versioning scheme to the projects that would only like to use it (the robot). That's really bad. But what's even worse is that something or someone silently changed "beta3" to "b3" in the POT, and then failed to perform the same change for my translation, which caused it to get dropped without notice. Returning an error that says "your version number is unparsable to this piece of software, you must use one of <...> instead" would be more correct in the long run. Is the robot written in Python? Would you consider it for inclusion if I donated a function that performed the comparison more fully (provided, of course, that the code meets your standards of quality)?