On Jan 23, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote: > OK well in short it was pretty much finalised and changing it now while of > course possible would cause a fair bit of disruption. I'd have to check but > most of the discussion was a couple of years ago with the release of OpenSSL > 1.0.0. > > In brief the new versioning scheme works like this: > > Security and bug fixes can go into letter releases (e.g. 1.0.0f->g). No new > features are allowed. > > New features that do not break binary compatibility require a new version. > This would change the last digit. So 1.0.0->1.0.1. > > Features and major changes which cab break binary compatibility change the > middle number so that would be 1.0.0->1.1.0. > > No precise definition has been formed for what would change the first number > (i.e. 1.0.0->2.0.0) but it would have to be pretty signigicant ;-)
FWIW, that is both reasonable but completely unlike what most high-profile software projects use. That is, people in the real world think of "new features", not "break binary compatibility". To some extent, this choice holds back the OpenSSL project because people won't even notice that you have added significant features if the new version is indicated by a third digit instead of a second or first digit. It's your call, of course. --Paul Hoffman ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
