> If there's a discontinuity, such as existing names going away, or even
> if it's just an important new name coming in, a version number such as
> 0.10.0 would be more appropriate than 0.9.6. 0.9.6 and particularly
> 0.9.5.1 (please let's not!) would indicate minor changes which wouldn't
> require changes in people's scripts or typing habits.
You bring up a good point (as always), John. I will reconsider our
numbering scheme. This new release will bring several new things to the
table:
1. USB support (using protocol "recipes", this changes libpisock and
that version will increment as well, and all of the language
bindings will be updated: Java, Perl, Tcl, Python)
2. GNU Autoconf/Automake (portably built packages, make dist, etc.)
3. Cleaned up getopt() parsing (may roll to popt() before release).
All of the conduits will accept similar parameters now, -p <port>
vs. argv[1] will be consistant, etc.
4. Much more modularized code (pilot_connect(char const *port);)
5. Collapsed binaries (install-memos, memos merged, getrom removed
[pi-getrom stays, not to worry])
6. General cleanups (strcpy/fprintf vs. strncpy/printf)
..and others. It's not a 1.0 release, but it's definately not
fitting of an "incremental" release either. 0.10.x is probably more
appropriate, as you suggest.
/d
_______________________________________________
Pilot-unix mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hcirisc.cs.binghamton.edu/mailman/listinfo/pilot-unix
