apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: Versioning policy was Re: [PATCH] fix apr-config with symlinks
Date Tue, 01 Apr 2003 17:22:18 GMT
Last one gets my vote. whichever we go for it needs to be CLEARLY documented
:)

david

----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <justin@erenkrantz.com>
To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Cc: <dev@apr.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: Versioning policy was Re: [PATCH] fix apr-config with symlinks


> --On Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:31 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> > No... I like the every-other thought.  I'd go odds-devel/evens-release.
>
> And, what exactly is a odds-devel release?
>
> To clarify, what has been suggested for the odds/even policy is this:
>
> 1.0.0: <initial>
> 1.0.1: <devel>
> 1.0.2: <release>
> 1.0.3: <devel>
> 1.0.4: <release>
>
> No statement on how compatibility is achieved in this model.
>
> Or, do you mean something closer to httpd:
>
> 1.0.0: <initial>
> 1.0.1: <binary compatible>
> 1.1.0: <devel - not compatible with 1.0>
> 1.1.1: <binary compatible with 1.1.0>
> 1.2.0: <release - not compatible with 1.1>
> 1.2.1: <binary compatible with 1.2.0>
> ...
>
> The documented versioning policy we have says:
>
> 1.0.0: <initial>
> 1.0.1: <binary compatible with 1.0.0>
> 1.0.2: <binary compatible with 1.0.0>
> 1.1.0: <source compatible, but not binary compatible>
> 2.0.0: <not compatible at all with prior releases>
>
> For a library, I like the last system by far.  -- justin
>


Mime
View raw message