octave-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #55829] prosposal: marking dev versions in DES


From: Colin Macdonald
Subject: [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #55829] prosposal: marking dev versions in DESCRIPTION
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 15:06:20 -0500 (EST)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Fedora; Linux x86_64; rv:65.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/65.0

URL:
  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55829>

                 Summary: prosposal: marking dev versions in DESCRIPTION
                 Project: GNU Octave
            Submitted by: cbm
            Submitted on: Mon 04 Mar 2019 08:06:18 PM UTC
                Category: Octave Forge Package
                Severity: 3 - Normal
                Priority: 5 - Normal
              Item Group: Documentation
                  Status: None
             Assigned to: None
         Originator Name: 
        Originator Email: 
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any
                 Release: dev
        Operating System: Any

    _______________________________________________________

Details:

As a matter of best practice, I propose that Octave Forge packages could set
"Version: " in the DESCRIPTION file to "0.4.2+" during the time following the
release of version "0.4.2" and before the release of "0.4.3" (or "0.5.0").

Rational
--------

1.  Most importantly, this would allow users who try a development version to
have "pkg" upgrade to the final version when released.

2.  I personally like "-dev" but our "compare_versions" differs from Python's
"PEP 440" (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0440/#developmental-releases)
in how "0.4.2-dev" is sorted compared to "0.4.2".  The "+" postfix seems
unambiguous.

3.  Its short so doesn't visually pollute "pkg list" output.

4.  private/get_description.m:is_valid_pkg_version_string specifically
mentions this example in its comments.  So perhaps "everyone" except me
alreaady knows this ;-)


Notes
-----

  * If someone prefers using "4.2.91" as development
    versions or pre-releases, that's fine too!  Really
    I'm arguing against "-dev" here...

  * If people like this, should we document it somewhere
    on the Octave Forge website?





    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55829>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]