[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Integrating package.el
From: |
Davis Herring |
Subject: |
Re: Integrating package.el |
Date: |
Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:03:12 -0800 (PST) |
User-agent: |
SquirrelMail/1.4.8-5.7.lanl7 |
> Speaking of version strings, are there any conventions how an author
> should version his packages? Currently when I make edits after a
> release and make them public while not wanting to release yet another
> version I usually just add a "+" after the version.
>
> 0.1 -> 0.1+ -> .... -> 0.1+ -> 0.2
>
> Not really happy with it. But what should I be doing instead?
Why not just use another layer of versions?
0.1, 0.1.1, 0.1.2, ..., 0.1.74, 0.2.
The rule I (try to) follow is that the major version number should be
incremented on an incompatible change, the minor version number on a
feature addition, the revision on any (public) bug fix, and (if one uses
it) the build number on any test.
Davis
--
This product is sold by volume, not by mass. If it appears too dense or
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during
shipping.
- Re: Integrating package.el, (continued)
- Re: Integrating package.el, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/01
- Re: Integrating package.el, Jonas Bernoulli, 2010/03/01
- Re: Integrating package.el, Ted Zlatanov, 2010/03/02
- Re: Integrating package.el, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/03
- Re: Integrating package.el, Phil Hagelberg, 2010/03/04
- Re: Integrating package.el,
Davis Herring <=
Re: Integrating package.el, Phil Hagelberg, 2010/03/04
Re: Integrating package.el, Ted Zlatanov, 2010/03/04
Re: Integrating package.el, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/04
Re: Integrating package.el, Ted Zlatanov, 2010/03/04
Re: Integrating package.el, Phil Hagelberg, 2010/03/07