From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Allowing rolling release packages on ELPA Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 15:40:05 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87o7u4p2t4.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36757"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 24 21:54:17 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1on3Wb-0009Po-DA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 21:54:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1on3J6-0007Kz-DM; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 15:40:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1on3Iz-0007Hz-7g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 15:40:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1on3Ix-0002kk-B4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 15:40:13 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 67801100123; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 15:40:09 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E73E310000D; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 15:40:07 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1666640407; bh=Z+GlxNnG8IvyFr24dFDLAibu/EuVRWisrlIYdU7aqug=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=RtaDoCfSLNPuz7Khs3FHHXb8SjYEzfD0LDI8UlR6cdMm33V00l/jFYfbTPBtYf19p AbsRNqpFAUwzbt/GnSC1LijPNtuDHf0BNgdKjrXMJFDnsoNP70WePKopMqwi8hrWeD Ph2JiFubCdyg7mhh0lgWW5flPAcbOQ+AvvdccGw0ia3AluqUhgqR7vYUzBGKEiGNlf dlQQ2gy76RLSXYIMD8U4OWhK0CmLrYu9Oz+Zr0fSaTAsBWqHPvodcGtOrqD+VzH2la MB3M+OjxKe43vJE+RSBoJtMgQTaRDyHFWSArdwJPnt3F56O1e6gIadTNKaJ3FNeOYm qbu/k64acZwEg== Original-Received: from alfajor (modemcable219.124-130-66.mc.videotron.ca [66.130.124.219]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A672D120EC8; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 15:40:07 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87o7u4p2t4.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Sat, 22 Oct 2022 10:31:35 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:298417 Archived-At: Hi Philip, > presumably on every commit. The following patch would enable ELPA > devel-like versioning on ELPA, if enabled with a :rolling-release > property. WDYT? [ I can imagine cases where we may need to explicitly set the "base version" from which the rolling-release version is computed, but we can cross this bridge when/if we get there. ] I would suggest to add a mention in the doc saying that this is discouraged. Also, it should say that it is not compatible with `:release-branch` and we should signal an error if `:release-branch` is set. Or maybe make it a special value of `:release-branch` rather than a new keyword? More importantly, it would be good to notice when that flag is out of date, i.e. signal an error if the `Version:` has changed when that flag is set. Maybe simply require that flag to be set to a string (rather than just `t`) which is the expected version specified in `Version:` and then signal an error if they don't agree? Stefan