incanter

ricardo 2016-05-26T05:52:29.000024Z

@daveliepmann: Got a reply on my question. 1.5.7 is just a bugfix on the old 1.5 branch, the latest is 1.9.0.

daveliepmann 2016-05-26T06:22:25.000026Z

@ricardo: That's a bit frustrating, since the README clearly says 1.5.7 and the master branch is definitely not at 1.9 šŸ˜•

ricardo 2016-05-26T06:23:32.000028Z

@daveliepmann: ĀÆ\(惄)/ĀÆ

ricardo 2016-05-26T06:24:00.000029Z

I updated the purpose here, maybe thatā€™ll at least help those who come into the channel.

ricardo 2016-05-26T06:27:31.000030Z

Iā€™m sure this must have bitten more than one person - an article I found about Think Stats from Dec 2015 by Ray Miller suggested 1.5.6, and at that point 1.9.0 had already been out for a year.

daveliepmann 2016-05-26T07:57:46.000031Z

I don't see how people would figure out 1.9 is "official" (https://github.com/incanter/incanter/issues/339#issuecomment-221750588) without substantial digging.

ricardo 2016-05-26T09:35:27.000033Z

@daveliepmann: Youā€™re preaching to the choir on that one. Not @mikeraā€™s fault, though, as he seems to be just another contributor, and the library does not have a maintainer right now.

ricardo 2016-05-26T09:36:10.000034Z

An indicator was that a lot of issues reference 1.9.0, but I agree, it requires a certain amount of digging and confirmation.

2016-05-26T18:17:40.000036Z

Generally summary for people who arenā€™t aware - Incanter 1.9.0 had a few breaking changes, and reworked the way a lot of things were done. In all honesty, it probably should have been a 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT release, as thatā€™s really what it was intended for. As a result, thereā€™s been a little drift between people on 1.x, and people who are effectively on 2.x (or 1.9.x). You can read a little about the breaking changes here - https://data-sorcery.org/2014/12/28/first-preview-of-incanter-2-0-aka-incanter-1-9-0/

šŸ‘ 1
2016-05-26T18:17:59.000038Z

But I agree, itā€™s definitely frustrating, especially as the documentation is inconsistent

daveliepmann 2016-05-26T21:16:20.000039Z

@surreal.analysis: your explanation clarifies things immensely. Thank you.

2016-05-26T21:30:14.000040Z

No problem. I went through all the confusing last summer, so itā€™s not new. Itā€™s unfortunately just not documented any clear place.