On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Max Bowsher 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.
I'm in favor of dropping support for the older versions of SWIG for
Subversion 1.5. I'd like to draw the line at 1.3.28 or 1.3.29.
Received on Thu Sep 27 01:29:38 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored