Stream: Coq Platform devs & users

Topic: Coq Platform release naming conventions


view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Aug 10 2020 at 15:41):

@Michael Soegtrop I want to remind about version naming conventions, if there will be indeed be some meta opam packages: https://github.com/MSoegtropIMC/coq-platform/issues/22

view this post on Zulip Michael Soegtrop (Aug 10 2020 at 17:42):

Karl Palmskog said:

Michael Soegtrop I want to remind about version naming conventions, if there will be indeed be some meta opam packages: https://github.com/MSoegtropIMC/coq-platform/issues/22

Yes, in opam I will name versions with +, but for the tags I think I keep the dot. Unless you find this confusing ...

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Aug 10 2020 at 17:47):

@Michael Soegtrop the problem is not the dot in itself, but the additional minor version number. For example, 8.11+alpha3 will be before 8.11.0, but 8.11.2+alpha3 will be after 8.11.2

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Aug 10 2020 at 17:55):

for example, here is how I believe it should be for 8.13, in chronological and opam order:

8.13+alpha1, 8.13+alpha2, 8.13.0, 8.13.1

view this post on Zulip Michael Soegtrop (Aug 10 2020 at 17:55):

Karl Palmskog said:

Michael Soegtrop the problem is not the dot, but the additional minor version number. For example, 8.11+alpha3 will be before 8.11.0, but 8.11.2+alpha3 will be after 8.11.2

Semantically I mean this is an alpha3 version for Coq platform for Coq 8.11.2. I can imagine that I will have a 8.13.beta1.beta1 version. I can also imagine that in the future every coq platform minor version has a coq platform beta version because the package picking might be controversial. Of cause it is not yet discussed if we take anything else than bug fixes in minor releases.

view this post on Zulip Michael Soegtrop (Aug 10 2020 at 17:57):

I think it might be

8.13.beta1.beta1, 8.13.beta1, 8.13.0.beta1, 8.13.0, 8.13.1.beta1, 8.13.1

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Aug 10 2020 at 17:58):

$ dpkg --compare-versions 8.13.0 lt 8.13.0.beta1 && echo true
true

view this post on Zulip Michael Soegtrop (Aug 10 2020 at 17:59):

Well in opam I will name it 8.13.0~beta1. But since this is opam specific, I don't see why I should name the tags like this.

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Aug 10 2020 at 18:38):

so there is going to be a different version naming scheme in opam on the one hand, and on GitHub (tags) and in the documentation on the other?

view this post on Zulip Michael Soegtrop (Aug 10 2020 at 20:40):

As I said, I think the version numbering with ~ and + in opam is a bit artificial, so I would prefer to just have dots in the tags.

view this post on Zulip Michael Soegtrop (Aug 10 2020 at 20:46):

Btw.: why is the name for Coq beta e.g. 8.11+beta and not 8.11~beta? Is the idea that '+'<'0'?

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Aug 10 2020 at 21:04):

the scheme with X.YY+alpha and X.YY+betaZ and X.YY.0 for Coq was carefully selected to fit both opam and other packaging systems such as Nix. More background here: https://github.com/coq/coq/pull/483

view this post on Zulip Michael Soegtrop (Aug 11 2020 at 09:17):

Karl Palmskog said:

the scheme with X.YY+alpha and X.YY+betaZ and X.YY.0 for Coq was carefully selected to fit both opam and other packaging systems such as Nix. More background here: https://github.com/coq/coq/pull/483

OK, I can change it. Should I rename the existing tags?
But I guess when the plan is to add a beta to the existing Coq version name, I have to add it with ~beta and not +beta, because I do not intend to replace it with a .0. Do you think this is a problem?

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Aug 11 2020 at 09:20):

maybe @Théo Zimmermann can advise. I don't want to force any scheme on the platform, I'm just worried about packaging and version ordering. Since Theo views distro packaging as one important aspect, I think he may have an opinion about GitHub tags vs. document version numbers vs. opam versions vs. Nix versions.

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Aug 11 2020 at 09:28):

to give one recent example about version ordering: We have coq-metacoq.1.0~alpha+8.9 and coq-metacoq.1.0~alpha2+8.11. When someone who hasn't pinned Coq and uses Coq 8.11 runs opam install coq-metacoq, he is prompted to downgrade Coq to 8.9.1.

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (Aug 11 2020 at 12:59):

I think that as long as the version scheme is not decided upon (after being discussed sufficiently to be confident that all stakes have been covered), there should not be any release to the main opam repos and the platform should be considered experimental to the point that tags may be removed in the future. I don't think we should rush any decision at this point.


Last updated: Jan 30 2023 at 12:03 UTC