On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 07:32 -0400, Ken Brown wrote: > On 3/11/2015 6:20 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 17:35 -0400, Ken Brown wrote: > >> I've succeeded in making dynamic loading of modules work in clisp on > >> Cygwin, and I'll be issuing a new release soon. > > > > Yeah! > > > >> My work was based on the tip of the upstream Mercurial repository, which > >> shows a version number of 2.49+ and is at revision 15623. So I was > >> thinking of using 2.49+hg15623 as the version number. Will upset be > >> happy with that? Or is there some other standard way of assigning > >> version numbers in cases like this? > > > > With setup now being stricter about versions wrt upgrading, we need to > > be as well. Because this is a post-2.49 revision, it should be > > VERSION=2.49 and RELEASE=2.YYYYMMDDhg15623 (since there was already a > > -1). > > That's fine with me, but I just want to make sure that there's no typo > in what you wrote. Are we really going to start having release numbers > that aren't just integers?
We already started that with the Cygwin test prereleases. -- Yaakov
