| 1 |
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:19:16 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > The following revision-free version comparison operators are provided: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > == exact version match, or prefix match (with *) |
| 9 |
> > != exact version non-match, or prefix non-match (with *) |
| 10 |
> > < version less than match |
| 11 |
> > <= version less or equal to match |
| 12 |
> > > version greater than match |
| 13 |
> > >= version greater or equal to match |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I think we should stick to the existing operators, and not introduce |
| 16 |
> two slightly different sets for different contexts. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Especially: |
| 19 |
> - The operator for exact version match should be = not ==. |
| 20 |
> - Omit the != operator because it can be confused with blockers. If an |
| 21 |
> operator for inequality is needed, we can add one but it should work |
| 22 |
> everywhere (we could e.g. use <> for that). |
| 23 |
> - The ~ operator is missing. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> > All those operators compare on versions ignoring the revision part. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> I am strictly opposed to this. Again, it is confusing to have the same |
| 28 |
> operators acting in a different way depending on context. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> > The following revision-oriented version comparison operators are |
| 31 |
> > provided: |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> > === exact version+revision match |
| 34 |
> > !== exact version+revision non-match |
| 35 |
> > <== version+revision less or equal to match |
| 36 |
> > >== version+revision greater or equal to match |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> These are not necessary if the regular operators match revision. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Most of your comments don't make sense if you are commenting on |
| 41 |
the actual proposal. However, it seems that you immediately ignored |
| 42 |
the core part of the proposal, and then commented on stupidity of some |
| 43 |
distorted, imagined, half-ass proposal you imagined that lacks the core |
| 44 |
part. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
So, please, keep your comments on topic. If you don't like the proposal |
| 47 |
(I didn't expect it to be otherwise), try at least to stay objective. |
| 48 |
Because, really, complaining that proposal doesn't have '~' operator |
| 49 |
means that you either didn't care to try to understand it, or that you |
| 50 |
immediately discarded what you didn't like and complained on the result |
| 51 |
you created yourself. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I expected more of you. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
Best regards, |
| 57 |
Michał Górny |
| 58 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives