On 9/26/07, Max Bowsher <maxb1@ukf.net> wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
> > Does anyone know why our SWIG upper bound is still set at 1.3.29? Is
> > there any reason not to increase to 1.3.31?
> >
> > Meanwhile, should we be taking this opportunity to increase the lower
> > bound? I don't imagine anyone's making a habit of testing new binding
> > development across the entire range, and I seem to remember SWIG 1.3.24
> > -> .25 being a significant change.
>
> Additional thoughts - I just went and looked at the SWIG release history:
>
> 2006-11-20 1.3.31
> 2006-11-12 1.3.30 contained regression, next release 8 days later
> 2006-03-21 1.3.29
> 2006-02-11 1.3.28
> 2005-10-15 1.3.27
> 2005-10-09 1.3.26 contained regression, next release 6 days later
> 2005-06-11 1.3.25
> 2004-12-14 1.3.24
>
>
> Based on the above:
>
> (1) Since 1.3.31 was released 10 months ago, it would be unreasonable
> not to support it if it is feasible to do so.
>
> (2) Given that SWIG is not required to build the bindings from a
> release, only to do development on them, or to be a release manager, I
> see no reason to support versions more than one year old, if even that
> much. If we adopted that policy, we would drop support for all versions
> prior to 1.3.29 immediately, and in two months time, drop support for
> all versions prior to 1.3.31. Or, we could just go ahead and drop
> support for all versions prior to 1.3.31 right now.
If we drop it in 2 months, given the low number of people impacted,
why not drop it right now?
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Sep 26 23:42:29 2007