Generalize regexp for tags to identify stable versions

[jrnold]

This allows for tags that are prefixed with name of the package followed by
a version number to be identified as tags corresponding to stable
versions. E.g. "foo-mode-v.1.0.0" or "foo-mode-1.0.0" will now be identified as a commit containing a stable version of the package.

The use case is when multiple packages are kept in a single
repo (which is admitted sub-optimal) or if the package is kept in a repo
with other code.

[purcell]

If a repo had an old tag which looked like foo-mode-1.0 and a newer tag which looked like 1.1, then the newer tag would be selected by this modified code. Is that okay for your use case? I'm not sure it's the ideal generalised solution, but I'm also not sure such a solution exists for repos which have version tags in both formats.

[jrnold]

Good point, that v1.1 would override foo-mode-v1.0, and repo maintainer(s) would need to keep a consistent tag naming scheme. I'm ambivalent about the pull request. I think that it's cleaner to require packages to be in their own repo. I think this adds a little more flexibility without likely causing too much chaos. But since I only interact with a couple packages, and you interact with hundreds, you have a better sense whether this is a reasonable idea. I thought I'd put in the pull request and then get your opinion.

[milkypostman]

One way around this would be to add a parameter to the recipe that
specifies a format for the specific package. That way in cases where a
package lives with another package you could specify a regexp for that
specific case.

This was always my intent so if you wanted to take this idea and do it in a
PR I'm happy to review but I don't use stable.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:05 Jeffrey Arnold notifications@github.com
wrote:

Good point, that v1.1 would override foo-mode-v1.0, and repo
maintainer(s) would need to keep a consistent tag naming scheme. I'm
ambivalent about the pull request. I think that it's cleaner to require
packages to be in their own repo. I think this adds a little more
flexibility without likely causing too much chaos. But since I only
interact with a couple packages, and you interact with hundreds, you have a
better sense whether this is a reasonable idea. I thought I'd put in the
pull request and then get your opinion.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2972 (comment).

[tarsius]

One way around this would be to add a parameter to the recipe that specifies a format for the specific package.

That exists now, closing.

https://github.com/melpa/melpa#recipe-format