                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of daniele.varra...@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.169;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1b128157-6168-413e-8605-187568afbaf0@googlegroups.com>
References: <1b128157-6168-413e-8605-187568afbaf0@googlegroups.com>
From: Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varra...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:30:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+mi_8aOWouhGKW7v77WLAT=Lsy7=qQTZnmyUD=RPLgmbmw...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Semver and prerelease
To: pgxn-users@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:08 AM, rdunklau <rdunk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to upload a distribution named 1.0.0-beta for my extension
> Multicorn. However, it is rejected for not being a valid semver version.
>
> The exact error message:
>
> The multicorn-1.0.0-beta/META.json file does not adhere to the PGXN Meta
> Specification.
> Errors:
> =95 Field /version: "1.0.0-beta" is not a valid semantic version [Spec v1=
.0.0]
> =95 Field /provides/multicorn/version: "1.0.0-beta" is not a valid semant=
ic
> version [Spec v1.0.0]
>
> Looking at http://semver.org/spec/v1.0.0.html, it looks perfectly valid t=
o
> me. Did I miss something?

It looks valid to me, and my Python implementation for pgxn client
fails on it as well. I've implemented my version on David's semver
0.2.1. Seems we don't like the dash before the trailing part:
"1.0.0beta" is what expected.

> I noticed that you discussed the issue back in December 2011, and I wonde=
red
> what you finally settled for.

I think it's an error on our side to advertise we adhere to semver: it
seems a "standard" too much tied to a single person's mood. I'd say we
should write down in the specs the pattern we expect without referring
to semver (if not in a "historical note", citing it was a preliminary
version).

-- Daniele