Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server eoc_bucket.c Makefile.in connection.c core.c
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). +1 Bill
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server eoc_bucket.c Makefile.in connection.c core.c
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
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server eoc_bucket.c Makefile.in connection.c core.c
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * include/http_connection.h: Declare eoc bucket interface. Shouldn't this be a minor MMN bump? nd
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server eoc_bucket.c Makefile.in connection.c core.c
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... joe
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server eoc_bucket.c Makefile.in connection.c core.c
* 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). 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. IMHO, of course... nd
