On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2000-01-10, Tom Lane mentioned:
>
> > "Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
> > > There appear to have been changes in the shared library libpq.
> > > Since the library has changed, it needs to have a new version number.
> >
> > You're right, we need to bump the number before release (and I hope we
> > remember!). Past practice has not been to bump the number during
> > development cycles, since we'd shortly have ridiculously high version
> > numbers if we incremented them at every development change.
> >
> > libpq++ has also had API changes requiring a new version number before
> > release, I think --- any others?
>
> It would at least be fair to bump the minor version number when you do the
> branch for a new version, so now we'd be at 2.1. IIRC the dynamic linker
> will pick the one with the higher minor version. Since we do not have any
> incompatible changes (?) we shouldn't bump the major version.
libpq++ got a major number bump on my first sweep. This time through
it should only need a minor since I don't forsee any operational changes,
just additional functionality and bug fixes.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN: $24.95/mo or less - 56K Dialup:
$17.95/moor less at Pop4 Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop
Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
