Version strings in lisp files?

Version strings in lisp files?

[Achim Gratz]

I've been working on the build system for org and these changes have
just been merged into org.  As part of the cleanup I had removed all
version strings in Git controlled files since they've mostly been a
source for merge conflicts.  Instead, the build system auto-generates
the version string into org-version.el (which is not committed into the
repository), where it can easily be picked up via autoload.  Bastien
(the org maintainer) tells me that Emacs requires a version string to be
present in org.el, what's the rationale for that?  Since those files
will have to transgress into Bzr it would be possible to alter the files
before committing into Bzr, but that doesn't feel right...


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

DIY Stuff:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/DIY.html

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Jambunathan K]

Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:

> I've been working on the build system for org and these changes have
> just been merged into org.  As part of the cleanup I had removed all
> version strings in Git controlled files since they've mostly been a
> source for merge conflicts.  Instead, the build system auto-generates
> the version string into org-version.el (which is not committed into the
> repository), where it can easily be picked up via autoload.  Bastien
> (the org maintainer) tells me that Emacs requires a version string to be
> present in org.el, what's the rationale for that?  Since those files
> will have to transgress into Bzr it would be possible to alter the files
> before committing into Bzr, but that doesn't feel right...

[OT] But on a related note,

Org-mode version 7.8.09
                 ^^^^^^
Try the below form.

(version-list-= (version-to-list "7.8.09")
		(version-to-list "7.8.9"))

To a human, 7.8.09 != 7.8.9.  But to Emacs, they are just the same.

I wish Org used version strings, that are Emacs-compatible.  Just a
minor complaint.

> Regards,
> Achim.

-- 

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Bastien]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.8.09")
> 		(version-to-list "7.8.9"))
>
> To a human, 7.8.09 != 7.8.9.  But to Emacs, they are just the same.

Right.  I will use 7.8.10 for the next version 7.9.1 for the first 
minor version after 7.9.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Jambunathan K]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.8.09")
>> 		(version-to-list "7.8.9"))
>>
>> To a human, 7.8.09 != 7.8.9.  But to Emacs, they are just the same.
>
> Right.  I will use 7.8.10 for the next version 7.9.1 for the first 
> minor version after 7.9.

That's nice.  If you still want to tag something as really minor, you
can go with 7.9.0.1, for example.

[CONTEXT SWITCH]

Btw, we can consider starting a etc/ORG-NEWS directory (much along the
lines of ERC-NEWS, GNUS-NEWS, MH-E-NEWS and NXML-NEWS)

We can mention the worthies since the last Emacs sync - ODT export for
example :-).  (I can submit a patch once a ORG-NEWS file is created in
bzr repo) Another way to fill the file is to make a copy-pasta from
Changes.org.

If it is too much of a hassle, ORG-NEWS could start out empty or very
minimal.  No doubt there is plenty of ORG-NEWS already for the next
Emacs-24.1+ releases.

This will necessitate a ORG-NEWS in Org's repo as well.

Jambunathan K.

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Bastien]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> That's nice.  If you still want to tag something as really minor, you
> can go with 7.9.0.1, for example.

I hope I'll never have to go that road..

> [CONTEXT SWITCH]
>
> Btw, we can consider starting a etc/ORG-NEWS directory (much along the
> lines of ERC-NEWS, GNUS-NEWS, MH-E-NEWS and NXML-NEWS)

This is not only something to consider -- it's mandatory.  
I have just pushed a preliminary version of ORG-NEWS to etc/
in Org's repor (master branch.)

But it needs more love: sorting by version is *not* clever.

We should try to sort out by important new features, incompatible
changes, important bug fixes.  We have to do this for Org since...
6.33x -- sigh.

> If it is too much of a hassle, ORG-NEWS could start out empty or very
> minimal.  No doubt there is plenty of ORG-NEWS already for the next
> Emacs-24.1+ releases.
>
> This will necessitate a ORG-NEWS in Org's repo as well.

If you can help sending patches against ORG-NEWS, that would be
highly appreciated!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>
> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:27:48 +0200
> 
> Bastien (the org maintainer) tells me that Emacs requires a version
> string to be present in org.el, what's the rationale for that?

I don't know why Bastien said that, Lisp files generally don't need
any version strings in them.  I guess we need to ask Bastien to
explain himself.

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Bastien]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>
>> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:27:48 +0200
>> 
>> Bastien (the org maintainer) tells me that Emacs requires a version
>> string to be present in org.el, what's the rationale for that?
>
> I don't know why Bastien said that, Lisp files generally don't need
> any version strings in them.  I guess we need to ask Bastien to
> explain himself.

IIRC, during on of the Org>Emacs merge, I was advised to remove version
strings from all org*.el/ob*.el files except org.el.  Gnus and ERC does
this too.

So I thought this was related to some policy.

But I'm fine with removing this line if it is not required.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Bastien <bzg@gnu.org>
> Cc: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:36 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>
> >> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:27:48 +0200
> >> 
> >> Bastien (the org maintainer) tells me that Emacs requires a version
> >> string to be present in org.el, what's the rationale for that?
> >
> > I don't know why Bastien said that, Lisp files generally don't need
> > any version strings in them.  I guess we need to ask Bastien to
> > explain himself.
> 
> IIRC, during on of the Org>Emacs merge, I was advised to remove version
> strings from all org*.el/ob*.el files except org.el.  Gnus and ERC does
> this too.
> 
> So I thought this was related to some policy.
> 
> But I'm fine with removing this line if it is not required.

AFAIK, the policy is that _if_ you want some version string in a
package, then keep that to a minimum (1 file).  But there's no policy,
AFAIK, to have a version string, if Org doesn't need that.

However, please wait for Stefan and Chong to give you the definitive
word on the current policy.

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Jambunathan K]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> AFAIK, the policy is that _if_ you want some version string in a
> package, then keep that to a minimum (1 file).  But there's no policy,
> AFAIK, to have a version string, if Org doesn't need that.

Leaving aside question of Org, 

,---- from package.el
|    ;; Prefer Package-Version; if defined, the package author
|    ;; probably wants us to use it.  Otherwise try Version.
|    (pkg-version
|     (or (package-strip-rcs-id (lm-header "package-version"))
| 	(package-strip-rcs-id (lm-header "version"))))
`----

,---- from package.el
|       (unless pkg-version
| 	(error
| 	 "Package lacks a \"Version\" or \"Package-Version\" header"))
`----

I think the policy differs based on what elisp file is being
considered....

The above data point is inconsequential for non-core Org because it is a
multi-file package and it's version comes from `org-pkg.el' bundled
within the tar.
-- 

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Cc: Bastien <bzg@gnu.org>,  Stromeko@nexgo.de,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 20:04:41 +0530
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > AFAIK, the policy is that _if_ you want some version string in a
> > package, then keep that to a minimum (1 file).  But there's no policy,
> > AFAIK, to have a version string, if Org doesn't need that.
> 
> Leaving aside question of Org, 
> 
> ,---- from package.el
> |    ;; Prefer Package-Version; if defined, the package author
> |    ;; probably wants us to use it.  Otherwise try Version.
> |    (pkg-version
> |     (or (package-strip-rcs-id (lm-header "package-version"))
> | 	(package-strip-rcs-id (lm-header "version"))))
> `----

That's a different issue, one that pertains to packages that are _not_
bundled with Emacs.

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Achim Gratz]

Eli Zaretskii writes:
> AFAIK, the policy is that _if_ you want some version string in a
> package, then keep that to a minimum (1 file).  But there's no policy,
> AFAIK, to have a version string, if Org doesn't need that.

As long as that header doesn't absolutely need to reside in org.el, I'm
fine either way.

> However, please wait for Stefan and Chong to give you the definitive
> word on the current policy.

Yes, let's hear what they say.  Thanks.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

SD adaptations for KORG EX-800 and Poly-800MkII V0.9:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#KorgSDada

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Stefan Monnier]

> AFAIK, the policy is that _if_ you want some version string in a
> package, then keep that to a minimum (1 file).  But there's no policy,
> AFAIK, to have a version string, if Org doesn't need that.

Yes, the fewer version numbers (and $Log$-style history) the better.
That's for "files under revision control".  Such data added dynamically
during the build is perfectly fine, in pretty much any amount.
We do tolerate a few version tags in a few files because occasionally
people find it handy, but we definitely do not require them.


        Stefan

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Achim Gratz]

Stefan Monnier writes:
>> AFAIK, the policy is that _if_ you want some version string in a
>> package, then keep that to a minimum (1 file).  But there's no policy,
>> AFAIK, to have a version string, if Org doesn't need that.
>
> Yes, the fewer version numbers (and $Log$-style history) the better.
> That's for "files under revision control".  Such data added dynamically
> during the build is perfectly fine, in pretty much any amount.
> We do tolerate a few version tags in a few files because occasionally
> people find it handy, but we definitely do not require them.

Thank you for the clarification.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Waldorf MIDI Implementation & additional documentation:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfDocs

Re: Version strings in lisp files?

[Bastien]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> AFAIK, the policy is that _if_ you want some version string in a
>> package, then keep that to a minimum (1 file).  But there's no policy,
>> AFAIK, to have a version string, if Org doesn't need that.
>
> Yes, the fewer version numbers (and $Log$-style history) the better.
> That's for "files under revision control".  Such data added dynamically
> during the build is perfectly fine, in pretty much any amount.
> We do tolerate a few version tags in a few files because occasionally
> people find it handy, but we definitely do not require them.

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

The latest Org (from git master branch) does not contain the "Version"
string anymore.

-- 
 Bastien