No, the discussion below is the question;
"Should release 0.9.x follow after 0.9.x-dev? Or shouldn't we release 0.9.(x+1) following the efforts in 0.9.x-dev?"
The standing issue is this; libapr.so.0.9.2 points at one set of functions. The -dev flavors may be patched with new functions in-progress, but if you use one of those functions and drop that binary onto a machine with an "OFFICIAL" libapr.so.0.9.2 the app won't start, because the old .2 version didn't include apr_foo_fn which will be in libapr.so.0.9.3 when it's released.
I'm confused (see below).
I would prefer the release number follows the -dev effort, and so would a few others - but that throws off our current users.
To clarify: 0.9.2-dev < 0.9.2. Yes, I agree with that.
But, your earlier comment says that 0.9.2 < 0.9.2-dev. AFAIK, we've never said that was the case. That would mean that 0.9.2-dev is after 0.9.2. So, the -dev version has some newer functions that the official version of the same version doesn't. Is that happening?
IIRC, there was some sentiment to burn every other minor patch number until we hit 1.0. So, there would be no 0.9.2 only 0.9.2-dev and 0.9.3. I'm very uncomfortable with such a scenario (what's the point of -dev then?). It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The -dev's should just not be released.
It's sort of been complicated because APR 0.9.2-dev has been distributed by SVN and httpd. (Sort of implies that APR is darn close to 1.0.) But, I don't want the cart dragging the horse here.
The only way to begin this change, I believe, is to wait for 1.0.0 to begin using this schema, if we want to adopt it.
Once we hit 1.0, the versioning rules should be in full force. Is there any dispute over that? -- justin
