On Saturday, January 20, 2018 at 9:01:53 AM UTC-5, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > We currently use "Major.Minor.Patch" numbering scheme, like Crypto++ > 5.6.5. I'd like to switch to just "Major.Minor". There are several reasons > for it, but the two main ones are: > > 1. we all our releases are either major or minor releases with respect to > ABI compatibility. In fact, we misapplied ABI criteria and released > Crypto++ 5.6.3, 5.6.4 and 5.5.6 when we should have released 5.7 and 6.0. > > 2. we can leave the third octet - Patch - for distros. Distros can us it > internally for testing. For example, If a distro builds current master, > they can name it Crypto++ 6.0.0. If they report back with a bug and we fix > it, their next test can use the name Crypto++ 6.0.1. > > I'm going to ping Debian and see what they have to say. >
OK, I talked to Debian. They are OK with two octets, three octets or even 12 octets. We are going to leave things they way they are to avoid confusion. Unofficially, we will avoid using the third octet. It will always be 0 for a release in practice. Jeff -- You received this message because you are subscribed to "Crypto++ Users". More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com and http://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/cryptopp-users. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crypto++ Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
