On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, K.G. wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:30:32 +0100 (MET), Szakacsits Szabolcs <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> 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?
I see. Then I think it's better not to release 1.6.25.1 (or 1.6.26 or a
second 1.6.25). Soname is greater, big deal. It happens almost everyday ;)
Szaka
_______________________________________________
Bug-parted mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted
