This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Question about clisp version naming


On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 07:32 -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 3/11/2015 6:20 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 17:35 -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
> >> I've succeeded in making dynamic loading of modules work in clisp on
> >> Cygwin, and I'll be issuing a new release soon.
> >
> > Yeah!
> >
> >> My work was based on the tip of the upstream Mercurial repository, which
> >> shows a version number of 2.49+ and is at revision 15623.  So I was
> >> thinking of using 2.49+hg15623 as the version number.  Will upset be
> >> happy with that?  Or is there some other standard way of assigning
> >> version numbers in cases like this?
> >
> > With setup now being stricter about versions wrt upgrading, we need to
> > be as well.  Because this is a post-2.49 revision, it should be
> > VERSION=2.49 and RELEASE=2.YYYYMMDDhg15623 (since there was already a
> > -1).
> 
> That's fine with me, but I just want to make sure that there's no typo 
> in what you wrote.  Are we really going to start having release numbers 
> that aren't just integers?

We already started that with the Cygwin test prereleases.

--
Yaakov



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]