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)?

Reply via email to