Last one gets my vote. whichever we go for it needs to be CLEARLY documented :)
david ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:42 AM Subject: Re: Versioning policy was Re: [PATCH] fix apr-config with symlinks > --On Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:31 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No... I like the every-other thought. I'd go odds-devel/evens-release. > > And, what exactly is a odds-devel release? > > To clarify, what has been suggested for the odds/even policy is this: > > 1.0.0: <initial> > 1.0.1: <devel> > 1.0.2: <release> > 1.0.3: <devel> > 1.0.4: <release> > > No statement on how compatibility is achieved in this model. > > Or, do you mean something closer to httpd: > > 1.0.0: <initial> > 1.0.1: <binary compatible> > 1.1.0: <devel - not compatible with 1.0> > 1.1.1: <binary compatible with 1.1.0> > 1.2.0: <release - not compatible with 1.1> > 1.2.1: <binary compatible with 1.2.0> > ... > > The documented versioning policy we have says: > > 1.0.0: <initial> > 1.0.1: <binary compatible with 1.0.0> > 1.0.2: <binary compatible with 1.0.0> > 1.1.0: <source compatible, but not binary compatible> > 2.0.0: <not compatible at all with prior releases> > > For a library, I like the last system by far. -- justin >
