On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:38:48AM +0100, André Malo wrote: > * Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:32:30PM +0100, André Malo wrote: > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > * include/http_connection.h: Declare eoc bucket interface. > > > > > > Shouldn't this be a minor MMN bump? > > > > I dunno, I don't really see the point in bumping the minor MMN more than > > once between releases and it's already been bumped three times since > > .48. > > > > In my mind an API is fixed in stone and supported only once it makes it > > to a release tarball; anything in CVS is subject to change, removal etc. > > So I'd say exactly one minor MMN bump is sufficient to differentiate the > > new 2.0.49 API from the old 2.0.4[78] API. Maybe opinions differ... > > Hmm. Third party development doesn't only occur after a release. I find > these bumps in addition to their compat function also very good as a > documenting tool (so we should at least add a short description about the > bucket thing to the last bump).
No argument about docs... > w.r.t. changes in CVS - we're in a stable branch. Nothing should be removed > here after added (except Bugs ;-). If we start to work that way you > described outside the development branch, then there's something > really wrong. Oh yes, I'm not trying to revise the backport policy :) Just making the point that mistakes can happen: maybe someone commits the wrong file, a backport merge gets typoed, a major issue comes up with a new API which then needs to be reverted, etc. That's why I'd say "it's in 2.0 CVS" should not necessarily imply "it's a supported set-in-stone API" even though it probably (and hopefully) always will. joe
