Wishes to the new G-Wrap maintainer?

[Linas Vepstas]

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 
slogans ("win95").

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