I don’t get this. I do a project and I have version 4.3. Then I make a major changes i.e. change API without backwards compatibility and create version 5.0. Now 5.0 is stable, but if someone depends on my package’s stable version, he has to rewrite his code, otherwise his package is insta-broken.

I think this has to be also discussed with Pharo developers, who missed the main conversation, here it is: http://forum.world.st/Searching-for-a-Roassal2-version-td4833461.html

In short: we are arguing on depending on numbered versions vs symbolic.


On 23 Jun 2015, at 14:40, stephan <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:

On 23-06-15 14:27, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
That’s the point, I’m fine using Pharo 4 in 2 years as long as the projects works. Because 1) I can use it for my reasons 2) I can migrate it if I need to. But if everyone depends on symbolic, in 2 years I open a project, it doesn’t work because too much changed, I have no idea what changed, I throw it to trash. Uko

If everyone would correctly use symbolic, the only thing you'd need
to do is change your own packages to make it work in the latest version of Pharo 4.
That is what we have with Seaside and it works. To make it work with your code,
Roassal, Glamour and GT need to switch to symbolic versions too.


Moose-dev mailing list