Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 9/26/07, Max Bowsher <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
Well, yeah, that's what I was implying in my last sentence above.
Received on Wed Sep 26 23:47:02 2007