On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 02:16, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> As John pointed out, what would 'svn --version' say under this scheme? Or,
> would we only have x.y.z for stable releases?
This question was answered by Kevin in
<http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2003-12/0257.shtml>. "svn,
version snapshot (r12860)"
> > Summarizing my email... it is just what Kevin posted:
> >
> > * interim releases are revnum-labeled
> > * stable releases are version-labeled
>
> How about version compatibility and binary compatibility rules? They have to
> apply at all times once 1.0 hits.
Those seem orthogonal.
> Also, I'd think that the 'unstable' version *needs* a version number for DSOs;
> not having a version for the dynamic linker is going to piss it off. -- justin
I don't think we should tie our shared library version to our package
version. It's possible that we'll want to release svn 2.0 without
making incompatible changes to the ABI (perhaps we added distributed
operation, but managed to do so by only adding things in a compatible
fashion to the schema, working copy, and network protocols). It's also
possible that we'll want to change the shared library major version
without bumping our own major version number.
(As an aside, apologies for writing "Fitz" instead of "Kevin" in
previous mail. I don't know why I have so much trouble with those
names; they aren't similar at all.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 6 16:22:55 2003