Noah Slater wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 06:32:04PM -0700, Chris Anderson wrote:
Are we ready for 0.9.1? My pet patch is in and backported, how about yours?
Mine are done.
Prefacing with: Version names are called $(MAJOR).$(MINOR).$(REVISION)
I am so confused!
Damien convinced me pretty well that $(REVISION) numbers should only get
bumped when we're backporting a fix for a bug that shouldn't be in that
$(MINOR) version number. Ie, end user code wouldn't have to change. I'm
definitely guilty of backporting code that would break client code based
on error reporting strictness etc, but adding new features definitely
seems greater than $(REVISION) changing importance.
So, I feel that I'm entirely over-thinking this entire issue, but at the
moment I'd probably lean towards releasing 0.10.0 from trunk as opposed
to a new $(REVISION) release. Either way we should probably try and
codify the rules for backporting and put up a wiki page with some
guidance on when we do what. My first litmus test is "If it's visible
from a client library perspective, it's at least a $(MINOR) revision
change without overwhelming support."
Anyway, that's just my two hundredths of a greenback.
Paul Davis
