Re: when is .98 due?

[Andreas Fester <An...@gmx.de>]

Hi,

I would like to take this to discuss one thing I thought about
when working on log4cxx and creating the Debian packages:

    Is 0.9.8 really the correct version number?

Background: The SO_NAME of the 0.9.7 library was "9", so we have to
change it before log4cxx is released, because 0.9.8 is not
binary compatible with 0.9.7.
Straightforward, we should change the SO_NAME to "10".

Then, things would be more clear if the release version is
called 0.10, so that subsequent (binary compatible) bugfix
releases can be named 0.10.1, 0.10.2, and so on.

Any comments?

Thanks,

	Andreas

Curt Arnold wrote:
> There is a bug tracking the blocking bugs for the 0.9.8 release:  
[...]

Re: when is .98 due?

[Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>]

On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:03 AM, Andreas Fester wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to take this to discuss one thing I thought about
> when working on log4cxx and creating the Debian packages:
>
>    Is 0.9.8 really the correct version number?
>
> Background: The SO_NAME of the 0.9.7 library was "9", so we have to
> change it before log4cxx is released, because 0.9.8 is not
> binary compatible with 0.9.7.
> Straightforward, we should change the SO_NAME to "10".
>
> Then, things would be more clear if the release version is
> called 0.10, so that subsequent (binary compatible) bugfix
> releases can be named 0.10.1, 0.10.2, and so on.
>
> Any comments?

Good point.  The 0.9.8 name was just a continuation of the existing  
pattern.