Seems like a mistake was made. Let's (don't ya love how that sounds
like I'm actually involved in the fix? ;) fix it sooner rather than
later.
Just curious, after a release, how come the numbers are not
automatically bumped to ensure this type thing gets caught sooner rather
than later? Is it possible to automate this as part of the build
process so that they get grabbed from some version information during
the build?
Greg
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 17:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, seeing that we don't have a third number, do people want me to
> increment the interface numbers for 7.3.1, or just wait for the
> increment in 7.4?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >
> > > It is not real clear to me whether we need a major version bump, rather
> > > than a minor one. We *do* need to signal binary incompatibility. Who
> > > can clarify the rules here?
> >
> > Strictly speaking, it's platform-dependent, but our shared library code
> > plays a bit of abuse with it. What it comes down to is:
> >
> > If you change or remove an interface, increment the major version number.
> > If you add an interface, increment the minor version number. If you did
> > neither but changed the source code at all, increment the third version
> > number, if we had one.
> >
> > To be thoroughly amused, read the libtool source. Grep for 'version_type'.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
> >
> >
--
Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net>
Copeland Computer Consulting