-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yoshihiro Tanaka wrote:
> Yes, if we could do without more information, it would be better.
> I just wandering it might be useful. How about the case like this?:
> 
> Wget 1.12      SIDB 1.0
> Wget 1.13      SIDB 1.1
> Wget 1.14      SIDB 1.1
> Wget 1.15      SIDB 1.1
> Wget 1.16      SIDB 1.2
> 
> For me, if SIDB has version number, it looks clear which version of
> Wget uses which format of SIDB.

Well, the Wget version should probably be included anyway, particularly
if some *ahem* unintended changes to the format were made in some version.

However, I think I've come up with some cases where the minor number for
the database could be useful. Instead of bumping it for new types of
information, we can bump it for actual structural changes, that are
designed so that older versions of Wget can still read the file,
ignoring the unknown structure.

- --
Micah J. Cowan
Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer,
and GNU Wget Project Maintainer.
http://micah.cowan.name/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH7rcm7M8hyUobTrERAuu3AJ9qHMmMqKfjlnhWDncV6Ci/YLGWLQCeLg4u
bEGg+SdHM+ZmB+EUqh45Cek=
=4JWk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to