I'd like to devise a robust version naming for Phobos. What is the best way?

Currently it's std.v2 but I'm unclear how it goes from there. By semver we'd go with std.v2_0_1 and so on.

Walter and others say it's better to have "std2" at top level instead of "std.v2" nested inside std. I confess I chose "std.v2" partially because it's easier to implement. But we can go either way. What would be best?

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 15:37:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Currently it's std.v2 but I'm unclear how it goes from there. By semver we'd go with std.v2_0_1 and so on.

This seems like a misuse of semver to me. Backwards-compatible bugfixes and additions to std.v2 can go directly into std.v2, just like they currently do for std. There is no need to create separate packages for every minor and patch increment.

If we really want to support users depending on a specific minor/patch release of Phobos other than the one shipped with their D toolchain, we should put Phobos on code.dlang.org.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 15:37:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I'd like to devise a robust version naming for Phobos. What is the best way?
>
> Currently it's std.v2 but I'm unclear how it goes from there. By semver we'd go with std.v2_0_1 and so on.
>
> Walter and others say it's better to have "std2" at top level instead of "std.v2" nested inside std. I confess I chose "std.v2" partially because it's easier to implement. But we can go either way. What would be best?

I would vote for having it at the same level. Regarding versions, how do other languages do it?

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 16:29:20 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 15:37:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Currently it's std.v2 but I'm unclear how it goes from there. By semver we'd go with std.v2_0_1 and so on.
>
> This seems like a misuse of semver to me. Backwards-compatible bugfixes and additions to std.v2 can go directly into std.v2, just like they currently do for std. There is no need to create separate packages for every minor and patch increment.
>
> If we really want to support users depending on a specific minor/patch release of Phobos other than the one shipped with their D toolchain, we should put Phobos on code.dlang.org.

It could also be split into sub packages, this way it should be possible to pick up patched version of subpackage, if it is problematic to move entire phobos to newer version.

Best regards,
Alexandru.

On 2021-11-03 12:29, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 15:37:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Currently it's std.v2 but I'm unclear how it goes from there. By semver we'd go with std.v2_0_1 and so on.
> 
> This seems like a misuse of semver to me. Backwards-compatible bugfixes and additions to std.v2 can go directly into std.v2, just like they currently do for std. There is no need to create separate packages for every minor and patch increment.
> 
> If we really want to support users depending on a specific minor/patch release of Phobos other than the one shipped with their D toolchain, we should put Phobos on code.dlang.org.

OK, so the way to go is with std version naming is...?

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 16:46:39 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 15:37:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I'd like to devise a robust version naming for Phobos. What is the best way?
>>
>> Currently it's std.v2 but I'm unclear how it goes from there. By semver we'd go with std.v2_0_1 and so on.
>>
>> Walter and others say it's better to have "std2" at top level instead of "std.v2" nested inside std. I confess I chose "std.v2" partially because it's easier to implement. But we can go either way. What would be best?
>
> I would vote for having it at the same level. Regarding versions, how do other languages do it?

The more I look into this, I think they just create a new incompatible version, like Python2 and Python3.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 18:11:28 UTC, harakim wrote:
> The more I look into this, I think they just create a new incompatible version, like Python2 and Python3.

Yes, but not Python.

Python had a forward-compatible system library called future and a third party library called six that provided Python3 transition code. I had a template for Python2 that did the future compatibility imports, so when I transitioned to Python3 I just had to remove that line for the most part. :-) Python3 transition was painless for me.

On 2021-11-03 11:37, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I'd like to devise a robust version naming for Phobos. What is the best way?
> 
> Currently it's std.v2 but I'm unclear how it goes from there. By semver we'd go with std.v2_0_1 and so on.
> 
> Walter and others say it's better to have "std2" at top level instead of "std.v2" nested inside std. I confess I chose "std.v2" partially because it's easier to implement. But we can go either way. What would be best?

Turns out switching names around is easy:

https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/8309/commits/5c6d9ba3aef59878b2b97c2464a1616d5dfce04b

On 2021-11-03 11:37, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I'd like to devise a robust version naming for Phobos. What is the best way?
> 
> Currently it's std.v2 but I'm unclear how it goes from there. By semver we'd go with std.v2_0_1 and so on.
> 
> Walter and others say it's better to have "std2" at top level instead of "std.v2" nested inside std. I confess I chose "std.v2" partially because it's easier to implement. But we can go either way. What would be best?
> 

One thought; we could call version actual names, like Ubuntu and OSX do. The version numbers will be a minor detail in the documentation.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 19:30:13 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> One thought; we could call version actual names, like Ubuntu and OSX do. The version numbers will be a minor detail in the documentation.

So you have "phobos", "deimos", then what?