Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

paket updates to older beta #292

Closed
agross opened this issue Oct 23, 2014 · 10 comments
Closed

paket updates to older beta #292

agross opened this issue Oct 23, 2014 · 10 comments
Labels

Comments

@agross
Copy link
Contributor

agross commented Oct 23, 2014

nuget Machine.Specifications.Should ~> 0

in lockfile:

...
    Machine.Specifications (0.8.3)
    Machine.Specifications.Should (0.7.2)
...

$ paket update updates MSpec to an older beta.

in lockfile:

...
    Machine.Specifications (0.8.3-Beta0000-0014)
    Machine.Specifications.Should (0.7.2-Beta0000-0006)
...

@forki @mexx

@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Oct 23, 2014

I assume the new semver parser doesn't flag as prerelease. The old one had
probably ignored the double dash versions

@mexx
Copy link
Member

mexx commented Oct 23, 2014

Yes, it's the problem with numbers before dash.

@agross agross added the bug label Oct 23, 2014
@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Oct 23, 2014

Do you know how to fix it?
On Oct 23, 2014 9:04 PM, "Max Malook" notifications@github.com wrote:

Yes, it's the problem with numbers before dash.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#292 (comment).

@mexx
Copy link
Member

mexx commented Oct 23, 2014

I'm looking currently into it.

@mexx
Copy link
Member

mexx commented Oct 23, 2014

I have trouble with the number detection, which is used to correct the sorting of versions.
When we implement SemVer v2 this extra handling would not work anymore, as pre-release parts are separated with dots, not by dashes and parts should only be sorted numeric when they consist solely of numbers.
Current handling tries to separate a part into a name and a number, how should we proceed with this behavior?

@mexx
Copy link
Member

mexx commented Oct 23, 2014

I currently would suggest to revert #288, as it's introduced the bigger problem as it supposed to solve, and address all the things with #289.

@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Oct 23, 2014

Ok good idea.
On Oct 23, 2014 9:40 PM, "Max Malook" notifications@github.com wrote:

I currently would suggest to revert #288
#288, as it's introduced the
bigger problem as it supposed to solve, and address all the things with
#289 #289.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#292 (comment).

@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Oct 23, 2014

done

@forki forki closed this as completed Oct 23, 2014
@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Oct 23, 2014

Btw: big respect for such a suggestion. That's never easy.

@mexx
Copy link
Member

mexx commented Oct 23, 2014

Bug in resolution of pre-release versions is less important as a bug in resolution of normal version, so it was easy to decide. But thanks for kudos, I'm trying my best ;)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants