Wishes to the new G-Wrap maintainer?
linas at linas.org
Sat Jul 10 00:00:39 EDT 2004
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 06:15:35PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann was heard to remark:
> linas at linas.org (Linas Vepstas) writes:
> > Whenever an api changes in an incompatible manner, please bump the
> > major version number. That's what major version numbers are for.
> Sorry, but there is no "standard scheme" for version numbers everyone
> must adhere to.
Actually, for libraries, there is ... incorrect version leads to
linkage breaks. Its actualy a technical problem, and not a matter
of taste or opinion.
> I prefer to use minor version number as "branch
> indicator" (like the Linux kernel, GNOME, ...). Branches may break
There is considerably more freedom of interpretation when dealing
with an application. Applications don't have API's that migh break
backwards compat; you can choose version numbers that make good
But Gnome is not the example you think: when Gnome broke backwards
compat, they *did* bump the major version number to 2.0; they didn't
call it 1.6. Note also that Gnome 2.4/2.6 is still backwards compat
with Gnome 2.0. They've already announced that Gnome 3.0 will be
incompat with 2.6.
Note that the Linux kernel is also a bad example: the 2.6 kernel is
backwards compat with the 2.4 and also the 2.2 kernel as well;
you can dual boot all of these without breaking a thing (i.e not
breaking the syscalls in glibc). And I've dual-booted 2.0 to 2.2
so I suspect they're all compatible. The kernel guys know they
can't break compat; if they had, everyone would be pissed off
and on BSD or Hurd by now.
> Yeah, but G-Wrap has a homepage and its own file release area now.
Bravo. Thank you for taking over g-wrap. Sorry for sounding so
grumpy and grouchy, it just comes from years of picking up after
other peoples messes.
pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <linas at linas.org>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933
More information about the gnucash-devel