Re: PED_MICRO_VERSION, PED_INTERFACE_AGE, PED_BINARY_AGE in configure.in

[Otavio Salvador]

"K.G." <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:40:05 +0100, Patrick Leslie Polzer <address@hidden> 
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:06:56 +0100
>> K.G. <"K.G." <address@hidden>> wrote:
>> 
>> > I think you forgot to update both PED_INTERFACE_AGE and
>> > PED_BINARY_AGE in configure.in when you released 1.6.25.
>> Oh dear, I'm sorry. In all the haste this has escaped me :(
>> I agree with Otavios suggestions.
>
> All right, let's do that. Then 1.6.26 will be set source and 
> binary incompatible with previous versions, so we'll be sure
> it can't break things with neither 1.6.25 nor 1.6.25.1 (and
> maybe people are already using 1.6.25 so i think this is
> necessary).

Right.

Isn't better to move the big changes to a 1.7.0 release? Or you think
the changes going in 1.6.26 isn't so big to justify it?

> Hopefuly with the big changes that will go in 1.6.26 this
> will be the case (or almost the case at the very least ;)
> I'll prepare a tag and then ask for review, then for release.
> I think there's no problem in displaying Parted 1.6.25 at the
> start of 1.6.25.1 because the code don't change, but if
> somebody thinks it's better I could directly add ".1" in
> the source (i don't think autoconf stuffs support x.y.z.t).

I think 1.6.25 is OK since the codebase is the same and won't matter
for bug reporting.

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: address@hidden      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."