On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@apache.org> wrote: > Bill wrote: > >>I think one of our disconnects with 2.4 -> 2.6 is that in any other >>framework, there would be >> no ABI breakage in 2.6. That breakage would be deferred to and shipped as >> 3.0. > > Huh? For just one single, simple example, what about APR??
Those are the rules of APR today. httpd today compiles against either apr-1 or apr-2. I don't understand your question? > Are we going to now redefine the standards of semantic versioning?? Maybe this will help illustrate our conflicting perspectives on versioning; w.m.n.x I understand your interpretation as w == wow factor (major breakage) m = minor (also major breakage) n = subversion (new features + enhancements, no breakage) While I understand versioning as m = major (major breakage) n = minor (avoid breakage, new features + enhancements) x = subversion (feature stable, bug + regression fixes only) I understand you (and perhaps Graham) are arguing there is no need for x? I argue there is no need for w. Are we going to move to a model where we have four part designations? Or can we move to a model where version-minor represents *frequent* and less disruptive releases to incorporate enhancements?
