From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Davis Herring" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Integrating package.el Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:03:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <29237.128.165.0.81.1267556592.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> 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> <201bac3a1003011337t54d88508ga10ec83b519eca1d@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: herring@lanl.gov NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1267557422 14945 80.91.229.12 (2 Mar 2010 19:17:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:17:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ted Zlatanov , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Jonas Bernoulli" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 02 20:16:57 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 1NmXZs-0003MX-67 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:16:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35701 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NmXZr-0002gX-Ax for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:16:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NmXNI-0006Ch-VH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:03:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50471 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NmXNH-0006Bs-QI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:03:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NmXNG-0002g7-CH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:03:19 -0500 Original-Received: from proofpoint1.lanl.gov ([204.121.3.25]:40299) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NmXNG-0002fX-3k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:03:18 -0500 Original-Received: from mailrelay2.lanl.gov (mailrelay2.lanl.gov [128.165.4.103]) by proofpoint1.lanl.gov (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o22J3CCv003014; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:03:12 -0700 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay2.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCEC15FD0A9; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:03:12 -0700 (MST) X-NIE-2-Virus-Scanner: amavisd-new at mailrelay2.lanl.gov Original-Received: from webmail1.lanl.gov (webmail1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.106]) by mailrelay2.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6229915FD092; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:03:12 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: by webmail1.lanl.gov (Postfix, from userid 48) id 5FFBD450001; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:03:12 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: from 128.165.0.81 (SquirrelMail authenticated user 196434) by webmail.lanl.gov with HTTP; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:03:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201bac3a1003011337t54d88508ga10ec83b519eca1d@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-5.7.lanl7 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2010-03-02_13:2010-02-06, 2010-03-02, 2010-03-02 signatures=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:121565 Archived-At: > 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.