Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > 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?
>
> ISTM that the briefly established strategy to bump the version numbers at
> the beginning of development is not satisfactory. The reason is that the
We bump at the beginning only because we _know_ we want new users to use
the newer library. (Does the runtime linker know to get the highest
minor numbered library with the same major number?)
Bumping at the end is done only when we know there is some change. The
big question is whether a change in the API or a change in the code
(recompile) is enough to bump that major version number. We always make
some force-recompile change in the library in each release, don't we?
Do we just bump the major in every major release?
> "beginning" is in many cases not well-defined. Example 1: If we hadn't
> noticed the PQnotifies() problem that started this thread we would have
> forgotten again. Example 2: If someone put a fix of some sort in libpq
> for 7.3.1, we would surely forget to bump the version number.
>
> Consequence: The library version number must be bumped as part of the
> release preparation, as is in fact written down in the release checklist.
I usually bumped the minor at the beginning because this allows beta
testers to not have _extra_ versions of the library laying around, and
also because we make minor library changes often during beta, so it
isn't clear when to bump that number.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
