> > I think he did too. But is you're view of fine-grained a bit 'reversed' ?
Probably. > > If you say you want foo-1, and *if* that library is done such that minor > version increases are backward-compatible in the same major number, > isn't it more naturall to request foo-1 and then get the highest minor > number than requesting foo then have the higher overall number ? > > (since higher major numbers are more likely to break compatibility > than higher minor numbers) > > In other words, foo-1.1 and foo-1.2 are the same library, while > foo-1.0 and foo-2.0 are too different. If I make a mistake here, I guess > we could have some guidelines on the semantic of version numbers... > No, I'd say you are quite right. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
