From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jonas Bernoulli Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Integrating package.el Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:37:43 +0100 Message-ID: <201bac3a1003011337t54d88508ga10ec83b519eca1d@mail.gmail.com> References: <87ocl167wx.fsf@hagelb.org> <8763795zsh.fsf@hagelb.org> <87r5pmwcf8.fsf@hagelb.org> <87ocjh2hyp.fsf@lifelogs.com> <873a0qxrd1.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87635gqe8k.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1267479954 2345 80.91.229.12 (1 Mar 2010 21:45:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:45:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ted Zlatanov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 01 22:45:50 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NmDQy-000052-O1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:45:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41288 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NmDQy-0002iN-9F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:45:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NmDJW-0005aE-M6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:38:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34089 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NmDJV-0005Za-Ns for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:38:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NmDJU-0008SQ-OH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:38:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:46436) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NmDJU-0008SK-GI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:38:04 -0500 Original-Received: by wwb22 with SMTP id 22so113261wwb.0 for ; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:38:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8jhNLX4zFSg7/zZUn19DomhuYQ1iAjUY6EQxsBMoIlc=; b=k9Pww/prS6qIfhbYsMPaHhfIQE0xKshfuHiy/BKiJimilu+7+rc35zhPPbgOzycGMb 62HB3l2PBLkOFS6NcLuL/mzbKqlMQtFNu8DvNKTDVk8ELo5z124aic4rQNi8PXD7oSJD TpvI4DWVoFFXbcoNWwzoUfOnjAKdYKXRrPYOE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=jkt73OOF6ZXsQcj+Sh4A/H2WFuFB2nUSnZyakkXVlRxTlbQMhEdI5ssjBtChrRQ9pa CNs8loL/KYcEOdb5p5ZvILBR6n8ucLrRqK35KRXSGhoFb+UcY6zRzOwUSZGCHynLzstE 7eH3uto78bh0xmOm7SeOMEr2ozP7M9QREC7lg= Original-Received: by 10.216.158.1 with SMTP id p1mr3316863wek.202.1267479483481; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:38:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87635gqe8k.fsf@lifelogs.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 54580de81f3f482a X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:121517 Archived-At: 2010/3/1 Ted Zlatanov : > OK. =C2=A0But I still think Emacs should record the version as I suggeste= d > whenever it finds it in a .el/.elc file. =C2=A0It would help resolve many > annoying user-level bugs by showing exactly what version of the library > was loaded, not implied from the directory but directly from the version > header. The information you get like this at runtime is not reliable. Some people bump right after making a new release other develop for months keeping the version from the latest release. Rather this information should be extracted by the repository maintainers, They have the full history of the package (if available) and cat determine from that which of the many revision containing a particular version string= , actually IS that version... (I have some slightly buggy code for this somewhere). 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? -- Jonas