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.
