Re: [Swig-devel] SWIG Version numbering - thought

[Jason S. <jas...@gm...>]

Wanted this on the list, too.

On 2/3/06, Jason Stewart <jas...@gm...> wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> On 2/3/06, William S Fulton <ws...@fu...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Given the number of apparent changes, do you think it would make  sen=
se
> > > to bump the version number of the next release to something  like
> > > SWIG-1.4 as a way to reduce some of the confusion with people  who ar=
e
> > > expecting it to work in exactly the same way as earlier 1.3.x
> > > releases?     Just a thought.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not really sure what the answer is to be honest.
>
> I think it would be more honest if we stopped calling it SWIG 1.3.x.
>
> To most people that implies a very small change in features, and
> lately the feature list has been changing rapidly. Especially with the
> added feature of regexes in %rename coming up, it's a big shift.
>
> Perhaps we could all agree on subversion change implies, what a minor
> version change implies and what a major version change implies. I.e.
>
> X.Y.Z
> X =3D major
> Y =3D minor
> Z =3D sub
>
> subversion change: only bugfix, no new features
> minor version change: feature additions, but no incompatibility
> major version: incompatibilities with older versions
>
> ideas?
>
> Cheers, jas.
>