* "Jean-Jacques Clar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > trawick: is minor mmn bump needed to reflect that API structure > was extended? Should the mmn be bumped up or not?Minor bump is to inform > developers that something has changed that they should be aware of. What > else?Will people that are more knowledgeable please share their > understanding on the subject? Thanks,jjc-:
Minor bumps are to keep forward compat. (runtime checks are sufficient for new features, but a TP module compiled for an older version should run without any breakage). Major bumps break binary compat. The above is actually a binary compat breakage -> major bump which is strongly forbidden in 2.0... One could see it like the mod_ssl.h issue, defining that the APIs were never part of the public. But my opinion is that we break promises if we do such things. That's btw the reason why I've made such an effort to wrap the new 2.1 API of mod_include for the 2.0 backport. And why we need to hide all non-public stuff in _private.h files or in the .c files themselves _before_ releasing 2.2. nd -- print "Just Another Perl Hacker"; # André Malo, <http://pub.perlig.de/> #
