On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:30:32 +0100 (MET), Szakacsits Szabolcs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > > > > Hopefuly with the big changes that will go in 1.6.26 this > > > will be the case (or almost the case at the very least ;) > > > I'll prepare a tag and then ask for review, then for release. > > > I think there's no problem in displaying Parted 1.6.25 at the > > > start of 1.6.25.1 because the code don't change, but if > > > somebody thinks it's better I could directly add ".1" in > > > the source (i don't think autoconf stuffs support x.y.z.t). > > > > I think 1.6.25 is OK since the codebase is the same and won't matter > > for bug reporting. > > Two 1.6.25 releases are highly bad. The only right way is to bump up the > version, document the change so people can know what's going on and act > accordingly. > > Szaka > The problem is that 1.6.25 has a soname greater than that of 1.6.24, so if we release 1.6.26 with the same as that of 1.6.24 then 1.6.27 with a one greater than both 1.6.24, 1.6.25 and 1.6.26 I doubt the situation will be better than what we wanted to do? (a 1.6.25.1 package with soname == 1.6.24 and a version displayed by parted of 1.6.25 or 1.6.25.1, the code being exactly the same anyway). Guillaume _______________________________________________ Bug-parted mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted
