I think when we introduced the "so-name" packaging in Xerces-C++ 2.0, it already implied our versioning strategy (which is similar to your URL document) i.e.
for Major.Minor.Patch if binary compatible, only Patch number change, "so-name" is the same if source compatible, but binary not, then Minor number change if neither source nor binary compatible, then Major number change. Note: for source compatibility, only public API (i.e. those documented in http://xml.apache.org/xerces-c/apiDocs/index.html) are committed. For next release, the distributed binary packages will be built with C++ namespace enabled, thus binary compatibility will be broken, so it will/should be called Xerces-C++ 2.2 Tinny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason E. Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:56 AM Subject: Versioning > Hey All, > > To my knowledge, we haven't really decided on a policy of what version > numbers to use for xerces, i.e. when to increment major/minor/patch > numbers. > > I found the following to be enlightening, and offer it to the group > for comment: > > http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html > > Cheers, > jas. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
