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 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?

Ken


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