apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Versioning policy was Re: [PATCH] fix apr-config with symlinks
Date Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:00:26 GMT
--On Friday, March 28, 2003 12:35 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." 
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> No, the discussion below is the question;
>
>   "Should release 0.9.x follow after 0.9.x-dev?  Or shouldn't
>   we release 0.9.(x+1) following the efforts in 0.9.x-dev?"
>
> The standing issue is this; libapr.so.0.9.2 points at one set of
> functions.  The -dev flavors may be patched with new functions
> in-progress, but if you use one of those functions and drop that
> binary onto a machine with an "OFFICIAL" libapr.so.0.9.2 the
> app won't start, because the old .2 version didn't include
> apr_foo_fn which will be in libapr.so.0.9.3 when it's released.

I'm confused (see below).

> I would prefer the release number follows the -dev effort, and
> so would a few others - but that throws off our current users.

To clarify: 0.9.2-dev < 0.9.2.  Yes, I agree with that.

But, your earlier comment says that 0.9.2 < 0.9.2-dev.  AFAIK, we've never 
said that was the case.  That would mean that 0.9.2-dev is after 0.9.2.  So, 
the -dev version has some newer functions that the official version of the 
same version doesn't.  Is that happening?

IIRC, there was some sentiment to burn every other minor patch number until we 
hit 1.0.  So, there would be no 0.9.2 only 0.9.2-dev and 0.9.3.  I'm very 
uncomfortable with such a scenario (what's the point of -dev then?).  It just 
doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  The -dev's should just not be released.

It's sort of been complicated because APR 0.9.2-dev has been distributed by 
SVN and httpd.  (Sort of implies that APR is darn close to 1.0.)  But, I don't 
want the cart dragging the horse here.

> The only way to begin this change, I believe, is to wait for 1.0.0
> to begin using this schema, if we want to adopt it.

Once we hit 1.0, the versioning rules should be in full force.  Is there any 
dispute over that?  -- justin

Mime
View raw message