GNU bug report logs -
#60905
[PATCH 08/25] gnu: go-github-com-pkg-diff: Update to 0.0.0-20210226163009-20ebb0f2a09e.
Previous Next
Reported by: Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 01:46:06 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Merged with 60898,
60899,
60900,
60901,
60902,
60903,
60904,
60906,
60907,
60908,
60909,
60910,
60911,
60912,
60913,
60914,
60915,
60916,
60917,
60918,
60919,
60920,
60921,
60922
Done: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com> writes:
> "( via Guix-patches" via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> * gnu/packages/golang.scm (go-github-com-pkg-diff): Update to
>> 0.0.0-20210226163009-20ebb0f2a09e.
>>
>>> --- a/gnu/packages/golang.scm
>>> +++ b/gnu/packages/golang.scm
>>
>>> @@ -8736,30 +8736,26 @@ (define-public go-github-com-go-git-go-git-fixtures
>>
>>> + (package
>>> + (name "go-github-com-pkg-diff")
>>> + (version "0.0.0-20210226163009-20ebb0f2a09e")
>>
>> As Chris said, don't use this kind of version string :)
>
> Ah, I actually have (what I think) is a valid reason for this. In Go,
> when a module is in development, this long string, including the SHA, is
> the actual version[1] of the module, and carries semantics for Go
> developers, i.e. "Signals that the module is still in development and
> unstable. The release carries no backwards compatibility or stability
> guarantees."
>
> It's how it will be referenced by other Go modules, and so I thought it
> best to make the version field reflect the actual version. The previous
> iteration of this package had an incorrect version: upstream did not
> assign it a 0.0.1 version; that's something we did.
>
> I agree that this is confusing for Guix maintainers, and causes
> duplicate information in the version and commit fields.
>
> What are your opinions on this?
I guess I'm not that fussed if a long version has some use.
What I would say is that as long as the version incorporates the commit
in some way and the commit is used in the package source bit, I'd use
the (let ((commit ... pattern to avoid duplicating bits of the commit
hash and make tweaking the commit easier.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 158 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.