On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 11:05:29AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:42:06PM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > gstein 2002/08/13 10:42:06 > > > > Modified: . versioning.html > > Log: > > Functions actually *cannot* be replace via macros, so note this and > > the reasons why. Clarify that pre-1.0 releases are not subject to > > these rules by moving that text out of the "Other Notes" area. Do a > > bunch of wording tweaks and add some more clarification to areas of > > this document. > > This is a completely agreeable theory in an ideal world where our library > project is just beginning. The problem is we already have a near-complete > library, and even though we don't call it 1.0, many projects use and > *depend* on it. IMHO we should have reached 1.0 a long time ago, and > the fact that we have so many projects using it proves that.
For the APR situation... sure. But the doc is also designed for other projects to use/refer to. In particular, Neon and SVN are "pre 1.0" and are changing their interfaces. The 0.x.y rule is their magic bullet for escaping the rules until they decide to do a formal release. > I move that we implement a runtime version checking scheme in APR and > then release 1.0 as soon as possible, at the same time adopting the > above versioning definitions. Sure, that's fine. But I'm going to be doing a 0.9.0 as soon as I can. I want to update some of the bits for versioning the resulting .so file, and then I'm going to package up a release. And that 0.9.0 is going to be whatever is in APR today. If somebody wants their darned pet feature in 1.0, then they can get it code before that date. But I want something *versioned* *today*. SVN users are dyin' cuz we can't point people at a specific APR release. The best we can do is "use CVS HEAD", which (of course) sucks ass. After a release, at least we can say "use at least 0.9.0". Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
