On Dec 5, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> Hi David,Iím not surprised. I talked to mojombo about it this summer at a GitHub-sponsored WWDC party. He told me he was thinking of adding a separator between the patch version and the optional string. I told him I thought it was a good idea, but strongly preferred the dash to the dot. He was also talking about allowing it to have up to four dot-separated parts, but I pushed back on that. His reasoning was because a lot of projects do that (Git and Rails, among them). I guess this change is a compromise on that
> looking at semver.org, there is some crap going on.
> the specs have been "updated" from 1.0.0 to 1.0.0-rc1. Note that the
> Also note that the guy had formerly changed the spec by having the
> So the specs previously accepted 1.0.0rc1 and rejected 1.0.0.rc1 or
> Thus, we probably now have version numbers in pgxn that are no moreYeah, looks like it will have to be split on the dots. What do you think, Sam? I need to read the spec changes in more detail to figure out what needs to change. Do you think itís do-able?
> valid semver. Not only that, but the semver postgres implementation is
> now less optimal, as the patchname field should be parsed in order to
> sort. I don't know if it's worth optimize it as it would take some C
> union juggling to maintain binary compatibilityÖ
Oh, thereís the new build version stuff. I think I would not support that on PGXN, which would leave packagers free to add it to PGXN releases that they package.
> It sucks, isn't it? What should we do? Shall we update to the lastThe only part I think that breaks existing semvers is the new requirement of the dash, yes? I think Iíll file a bug report about that. Iíd strongly prefer backward compatible changes to the spec, of course. And Iíd probably keep the semver data type that way, anyway.
> spec, hoping that he doesn't increase it from 1.0.0-rc1 to 0.1-beta4?
> Shall we stop declaring we support semver and move to a versioning
> scheme of our own, matching our current implementation?
> By the way I actually prefer the - separator after the base version,Me too. Mojombo told me he hadn't released it as a final version, though, so he was still free to change that. The 1.0.0 seems to contradict that, but whatever, itís his deal.
> but I loathe the de-stabilization of the specs.
> If we decide to move to the new specs, I can fix the postgresYeah, I will have to update https://metacpan.org/module/SemVer.
> extension as well as the python implementation. Don't know if you have
> some perl code too in pgxn or if you only rely to postgres for
> The important thing is that the client and theAgreed.
> server match their implementation, or we'd end up with extensions that
> can't be handled by the client.
> Also, what about extensions already in pgxn whose version would changeIíve [complained](https://github.com/mojombo/semver.org/issues/49). But even if Mojombo does not come around, we might be able to just say that the dash is optional in our implementations. Work for you?
> (such as pgmp 1.0.0b3 - sorry, it's always my fault! we can purge it
> from pgxn that's the only one): would re-index be enough to rewrite
> the META (and any other file containing textual representation of the
> version) and have the version as 1.0.0-b3?
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.