-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 122
Update cmake project version setting #429
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
dyfer
wants to merge
2
commits into
supercollider:main
Choose a base branch
from
dyfer:cmake-updates
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This doesn't look right to me. On the one hand, sc3-plugins has its own version number (= the git tag), which does not necessarily matches the one of the SC repo. This can lead to situations where sc3-plugins 3.15 might present itself as 3.14 when building against SC 3.14.
I think that we should just report the "real" version, probably via a
cmake_modules/version.cmakemodule similar to SC'sSCVersion.txt. Then the message would become something like:The question: do we mandate that the sc3-plugins matches the SC version? If yes, then we should enforce it!
Personally, I think there are situations where it can make sense to build sc3-plugins against older SC versions. For example, a user might not be able to upgrade their SC installation, but they want to compile a newer version of sc3-plugins to get some bugfixes. As long as it compiles, I don't see any issues with that. After all, sc3-plugins are in maintainance mode and won't use any new features from SC 3.15+.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess so far we didn't really track the sc3-plugins version separately from SC. So indeed, whichever version of SC you build against, this is the version reported by the plugins, at least for display and packaging purposes.
Since sc3-plugins are in maintenance mode, I don't think that's necessarily bad... ultimately it's unlikely the users need to differentiate versions of plugins themselves, but they may need to differentiate versions built against different versions of SC/plugin interface on the same machine.
The project version is also used in the cpack portion - I'm not sure who's using that, but it was similarly set to the SC version. That's why I used the implementation to just set the project version.
Do you think we should change this, particularly considering the maintenance status?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that sc3-plugins should report its true version. I find the current behavior really confusing.
I don't really see why it should behave differently from "normal" third-party plugins in this regard. For example, VSTPlugin 0.6.2 does not magically turn into VSTPlugin 3.14 just because I build it against SC 3.14 :) If I need to maintain different sc3-plugins builds for different SC versions, I just need to keep them in different folders, just like with all other plugins.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand this is a non-standard behavior. But do we want to change it for what's possibly one last version of sc3-plugins, assuming the package manager comes around and we split plugins into multiple independent packages?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since you're doing a PR anyway, I would take the chance and fix it. But that's just my opinion.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay. Are you suggesting a version defined in a text file, like in SuperCollider? Or some other way? We can't only rely on a git tag, since the source needs to build from a source tarball as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would just do the same thing as in
SCVersion.txt.