On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 04:51:51PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > >I'd suggest just incrementing the MMN by one rather than bumping it by > >date on the branch unless and until the API is the same as the trunk. > > I previously considered that. Although you are right; they are out of > sync, I think it's inevitable with two branches following different > history, no?
It's not inevitable but it is the status quo ;) > This is why the MODULE_MAGIC_COOKIE is now AP24 on svn head, because the > two branches can't remain binary compatible, at least not except for > some very short periods of time. > > Perhaps you are right, perhaps it's time to drop date stamps as the > MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR signature? Maintaining an MMN which is intended to reflect every single ABI change and multiple branches with independent ABIs is going to be a tricky problem. Alternatives I can see: a) partition the MMN major by MODULE_MAGIC_COOKIE, so modules must test an (MODULE_MAGIC_COOKIE, MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR) pair to target a particular API -> results are then reliable across history and across branches -> icky b) stop bumping the MMN by date on branches, just increment by one and hope that enough gap is left -> results are then reliable across branches but not across history c) don't backport ABI changes to branches; a branch much fork from a specific MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR and must be rebased entirely to move to a new major -> avoids the problem entirely d) drop the requirement that the MMN must reflect every single ABI change and make some more fundamental change joe
