On 13 February 2013 19:35, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr> wrote:
On Feb 13, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 February 2013 16:03, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr> wrote:
On Feb 13, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
stephane ducasse wrote
@sean what was the problem because I tested it several time on 1.4 and 2.0
The tests were failing due to FS differences between 1.4 and 2.0. I uploaded fixes, so we could do a 4.5.1 with the latest packages (4.5 is tagged release so we shouldn't change it). Also, I moved the dependency on the CommandShell version from the baseline (where I originally put it in error), to the versions.
Nobody use this 4.5 so we could just modify it. Because 4.5.1 looks boring to me.
As a general rule this is a very bad idea. The version number should allow you to say with certainty what's in an artifact. Just modifying it means that "4.5" tells you just about nothing about someone's setup when they say "4.5 is broken".
frank I do not really need a lesson. ***I*** created the wrong 4.5 version so probably nobody could reliably use it. So what is the point to get a major version broken. I do not want to always have to remember that I should use 4.5.1.1 better 4.5
Look, it's your software, so it's your call. If it was _my_ software - and it's not - I'd just figure out how I managed to release something broken, fix that, and release a 4.5.1. It's not like you're going to run out of version numbers. frank
Stef
frank
For CommandShell, I moved CommandShellPharo into a #'pharo' block, and MVC into a #'squeak' one.
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/The-monkey-is-back-in-town-tp4658091p4669672.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.