[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Keeping the version in filenames
- To: Göran Weinholt <goran@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Keeping the version in filenames
- From: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 08:53:46 +0300
- Cc: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum@xxxxxxxxx>, srfi-103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: srfi-103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=J1jQn6518G07wR0yUojAC0xzJuVTx9ENQeIGHauuRB4=; b=HbdN1IcVuf3fzFYuAv/00dd8MNIYMwaPCdZGplfnzOznDIqXY2zqMa85tjru/z1e49 egdxoReExBQui+wl17rBGkupUAMFih3kBNHhHHotyeB08mExbqC3dfDsAzLRT28TY2zG zunHQXZjxSZyHhZqxm9EGC8Dug1OqhCtxOAHQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=nh6nFOOMnGDfVW+838s9Rfc2Z4ilGvyvSM/wZVAyoZE8QfqYYY6ADbG3N1amw+o7Y7 TgPjXr4VrLhG5eDkK0uG5pt7M3JSnMAFGb9gMwMvntscxE7FeF+ufElYTLYrXKdybsBC v585CcqJ1xu4u83IoGwZ+toTPC9s1YIyFpgzI=
- In-reply-to: <87ocorgl65.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <87ocorgl65.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Oct 1, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Göran Weinholt wrote:
I'm wondering what my workflow will look like if I want to write
libraries that work with SRFI-103. Since I have versions in all my
library forms, it seems like I'd have to rename my files whenever I
change a version number.
Yes. It does seem like it.
I would need to write a save-hook or it would get boring pretty fast.
This would add too much clutter. (and I use vim, so, no fancy hooks for
I suspect that I'd also need to abandon the YYYYMMDD part of my
numbers, or I'd end up with quite a lot of files.
I did raise this issue outside of this mailing list and I was told that
people don't change library version numbers that often, which obviously
is not the case in your example.
I'm still standing by my position that library versions should not be
included in the file name.
So is the idea that I would be keeping versioned filenames in my
repository, or would they be renamed to include a version by a package
We should not assume the existence of a package manager. Also, you
won't be using a package manager when working with your own libraries,
right? Usually, you work on your libraries locally and then, in a
separate step, package it together for distribution. You won't want
to add the package manager to your workflow.
Also, SCHEME_LIBRARY_SEARCH_PATHS is rather long. How about SLSPATH?
I think it is long. I'd be happier with SCHEME_PATH (Derick likes
plurals and hates unix) or SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH. The work SEARCH is
definitely not adding anything you don't already understand from the