Xerces versioning policies: re version definition in XercesDefs.hpp && Outstanding Bug 9154

[Robert Buck <rb...@mathworks.com>]

Point well taken. Who are the right people to help decide such a policy?

I think we could get by simply by stating that minor version numbers and 
revision numbers MUST have two digits in the version header file. Right? 
The requirement is not necessary , I think, for major version numbers.

Thoughts everyone?

Jesse, if you know of anyone that should review this, please pass it on to 
them. It may be nice just to implement the above policy now before the release.

-Bob

At 08:51 AM 7/11/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>I don't know whether a hex representation is useful, but it might be a good
>idea to provide for more than one digit each for minor version and revision.
>As things stand, version 1.7.9 would be represented as 179, 1.7.10 would be
>1710, and 1.8.0 would be 180. Version 1.8.0 is later than 1.7.10, but 1710 >
>180, so a preprocessor test for a version prior to 1.8.0 would fail if the
>version were 1.7.10.
>
>I haven't looked at the patch, so I have no idea whether zero padding is
>viable. Nor do I know if there's a commitment to keeping to single-digit
>minor version and revision components. Single digits have sufficed for all
>releases up to the present, I think, but it's important to choose this sort
>of limitation consciously, so as to minimize unpleasant surprises.
>
>-jesse-


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org