Coq Platform release naming conventions · Coq Platform devs & users

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

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

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

Michael Soegtrop (Aug 10 2020 at 17:55):

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.

Michael Soegtrop (Aug 10 2020 at 17:57):

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

Karl Palmskog (Aug 10 2020 at 17:58):

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

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.

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?

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.

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'?

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

Michael Soegtrop (Aug 11 2020 at 09:17):

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?

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.

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.

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.

Stream: Coq Platform devs & users

Topic: Coq Platform release naming conventions

Karl Palmskog (Aug 10 2020 at 15:41):

Michael Soegtrop (Aug 10 2020 at 17:42):