On Mon, Jul 31, 2006, Bob Copeland wrote: > > Actually, the lkarmafs fix only needs *additions* to the API rather > > than changes. I should have been clearer on that point. > > So that shouldn't require a major revision increment. > > I understand; however 0.1.0 isn't a major revision increment, though. > 1.0.0 would be. > > The usual way for handling things in libraries is to increment the minor > revision that adds new functionality but doesn't break any old, and increment > the major version when making fundamental API changes. Then keep the soname > in sync with this.
Okay. Sounds sensible. Keith. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-karma-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-karma-devel
