DUB 0.9.22 released

[tn via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 06:22:27 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
> On 22/09/14 23:04, tn wrote:
>
>> What is the recommended way of versioning bindings? If the 
>> binding of
>> the target library 1.2.3 is versioned as 1.2.3 and a bug is 
>> fixed in the
>> binding (no change in the target library), how should the new 
>> version of
>> the binding for target version 1.2.3 be versioned? Using 1.2.4 
>> is not an
>> option because it potentially collides with the binding for 
>> the next
>> version of the target.
>
> The problem is locking the version of the Dub package to the 
> same version of the library the bindings are for. In you're 
> example I would do something like "1.2.3+1.2.3". If you need 
> fix a bug in the bindings you increment as usual to 
> "1.2.4+1.2.3". Anything after the plus sign is basically 
> metadata that is ignore by Dub

In your suggestion, once version 1.2.4 of the target library is 
released, the first binding version targeting that would then be 
1.2.4+1.2.4 or 1.2.5+1.2.4 or what?

And more importantly, how can a user of the binding then depend 
on the latest binding version of a specific target library 
version (for example the latest bindings for 1.2.3)?