Ah, that makes sense. There will be no issue then. Thanks, Cosmo
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > This patch would go into the next stable, which is 4.0.5. > On Mar 21, 2014 3:06 AM, "Cosmo Harrigan" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> If this fix is backported without incrementing the minor version number, >> then it presents the challenge of how to identify whether the functionality >> is present on a particular system when wrapping it in a language binding, >> because version 4.0.4 could refer both to the prior version without the >> functionality, or to the later version with the functionality. >> >> Cosmo >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:43 PM, MinRK <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Amending the rules is fine, I just wanted to point out that you can't >>> > backport new features without updating the minor version number within >>> the >>> > current definitions of libzmq minor and patch versions. >>> > >>> > As an author and user of the pyzmq bindings, there is no cost to me in >>> > failing to backport the steerable function. I have used zmq_proxy daily >>> > (since it was called zmq_device), with no issue. I don't actually >>> have any >>> > plan to expose the steerable version in pyzmq, because it doesn't >>> offer any >>> > real benefit in that context. >>> > >>> > I don't think the steerable version of the function belongs in libzmq >>> at >>> > all, so backporting it seems a bit silly to me. >>> >>> Points taken. It's arguable that such code belongs in libzmq at all. >>> Clearly people do like it, and we know that moving common >>> functionality into libzmq can be profitable. For CZMQ I rewrote the >>> proxy code though. >>> >>> There is a tendency to wrap CZMQ instead of libzmq, and that may >>> resolve this old discussion of what belongs where. I think few people >>> are using the raw libzmq API any longer, so it's a bit moot. >>> >>> WRT versioning, our rules don't specify it (any more, unless I've >>> missed something). We used to refer to semantic versioning, but that >>> opened the door to catastrophic release shifts (2.x vs 3.x vs 4.x). >>> >>> -Pieter >>> _______________________________________________ >>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
