Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Bump version to 3.0.0a2
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
@baoilleach
baoilleach committed Sep 16, 2019
1 parent c195713 commit 4947447
Showing 1 changed file with 1 addition and 1 deletion.
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion CMakeLists.txt
View file
Expand Up @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ include (CheckCXXCompilerFlag)
# had too many 1.100.1 releases. :-)
set(BABEL_MAJ_VER 3)
set(BABEL_MIN_VER 0)
set(BABEL_PATCH_VER a1)
set(BABEL_PATCH_VER 0a2)

# This should be phased out in preference for just using the target name
set(BABEL_LIBRARY openbabel)
Expand Down

8 comments on commit 4947447

@dkoes
Copy link
Contributor

@dkoes dkoes commented on 4947447 Sep 19, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

0a2 and (a1) aren't numbers. This versioning scheme breaks the OB_VERSION_CHECK macro (error: user-defined literal in preprocessor expression). If you really want an 'a' in there you could make it hexideciaml (0xa2). Of course, all of these will generate version numbers that are larger than the final release (3.0.0).

@baoilleach
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point, but as this is a standard versioning scheme, this is presumably a solved problem if we look around.

@dkoes
Copy link
Contributor

@dkoes dkoes commented on 4947447 Sep 20, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Presumably they aren't trying to cast the full version string to an integer? I would suggest changing to 2.99.0xa2

You can't build any software that uses OB_VERSION as it is now.

@ghutchis
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, agreed with @dkoes - next release should be from 2.99.*

@baoilleach
Copy link
Member Author

@baoilleach baoilleach commented on 4947447 Sep 20, 2019 via email

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dkoes
Copy link
Contributor

@dkoes dkoes commented on 4947447 Sep 20, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So call 2.99.0xa3 "3.0.a3" in the package.json. But I want to be able to compile against master without having to first edit the version.

@ghutchis
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, there's a difference between the OB_VERSION_CHECK header and the external name for the code.

Even if we change the macro, there are a variety of codes that mis-interpret alpha/beta designations. I remember this painfully (thus 1.99, 1.100, etc.)

@baoilleach
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, as you wish. But let's revisit this for OB 4.0. :-)

Please sign in to comment.