Re: Policy: Versioning Macros In The Archive

[Peter Simons]

Tom Howard writes:

 > We shouldn't worry about bumping the version number for
 > the author.

I disagree. This version information is _our_ version. That
is the version the Archive provides. We cannot rely on the
initial author to take care of that, because macros may be
(and will be) modified by other people too. Therefore, the
_Archive_ has authoritative version information, not the
initial submitter.


 > [Just] say someone submits a patch for one of my macros
 > and I'm un-contactable (for whatever reason) or don't
 > notice. When I make some other change and submit an
 > update, if we are using version numbers, a version number
 > conflict will be noticed [...].

Excellent example! Thanks a lot, this gives rise to a
wonderfully obvious addition to the policy:

  Modifications to macros distributed by the Archive MUST be
  submitted as a "diff" suitable for use with patch(1).
  Patches that do not modify the @version tag MUST NOT be
  accepted.

  A resubmission of the complete file MAY be accepted from
  the principal author of the macro, but that practice is
  generally discouraged.

Rationale:

By applying only patches -- and only patches that modify the
@version tag, that is -- it can be guaranteed that the
modification was written for the version of the macro that
the Archive currently distributes. The practice rules out
unnoticed conflicts between independent submitters.

Peter