I'm not sure if the version numbers have been settled or not since I missed several weeks of emails. But instead of going w/ numbers starting at 1 ... why don't we follow the Ubuntu model? year.month of release and use alphabetical names for the release we're working on.
I suggest that for names we use Washington state geographical references (to follow after 'drizzle'). For example: (Mt) Adams, (Mt) Baker, Columbia (river), etc. Then just use build number after the name / release numbers. It makes it *really* easy for the casual developer (like myself) to know where he/she stands. My $.02 G On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Monty Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since we have a new shared lib name, I'm thinking we should (once we > release something) drop the so version back down to 1. > > I, for one, would love to see us actually use use all three numbers in > the libtool version system, rather than just ignoring the last two... > but that really only matters once we are releasing stuff. > > But do we agree on dropping SHARED_LIB_MAJOR_VERSION=16 to > SHARED_LIB_MAJOR_VERSION=1 ? (and while we're at it, I see no reason to > set this in configure.ac... how about we just make libdrizzle.ver a real > file and set the version directly in there? > > Monty > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Time's fun when one has flies -- A friend of mine _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
