apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [discuss] Releasing pre-release APR
Date Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:55:04 GMT
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Bojan Smojver wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 20:35 +0100, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>     
>>> I think we need a way to distribute alpha releases, just same as what
>>> we do with httpd. 
>>>       
>> Why don't we just do what many other projects do - pronounce that for
>> any odd minor release no versioning rules apply, whatsoever. So, if
>> somebody links to, say 1.5 in the future, it's their own problem if
>> things change in 1.6.
>>     
>
> In conjunction with naming resources as -2.5 instead of -2, including the
> libs and include directories, so that 2.5 is explicitly incompatible with
> the 2.x series, while the 2.6 resources would all be named -2 (true binary
> compatibility) this would make a lot of sense.  My personal preference is
> to avoid disrupting the 1.x versioning policy.
>
> It would also help if our apr.m4 suggested feature-detection macros would
> only pick up this x.odd release on demand, and not pick up such versions
> without the explicit autoconf flag to do so.
>   

Hey hey, slow down. Our versioning rules aren't all that useless. Yeah,
it's hard to conform to them, but writing a generally useful portable
runtime library is hard anyway, and these rules at least promise our
users a measure of stability. For example, life in Subversion would be
pure hell if APR's versioning rules were different.

Perfectly OK to invent safeguards that prevent people from being tripped
by half-baked unreleased APIs, but to nuke the whole version numbering
paradigm is nonsense.

-- Brane

Mime
View raw message