Re: OCTAVE_API_VERSION without '+' character?

[Mike Miller]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 14:27:18 -0500, John W. Eaton wrote:
> Yes, and to say "this is a development version; interfaces may be changing
> without a change in the version number".
[…]
> The original goal of the API version was to avoid loading .oct files that
> were compiled and linked with incompatible versions of the Octave libraries.
> At one time I thought we could avoid needing the API version if we used
> proper library versioning.  But now we don't link .oct files directly with
> the Octave libraries, so I assume we still need this version number to
> detect mismatch?  In place of using our own API version, could we encode the
> liboctave and liboctinterp version numbers in the .oct file and use the same
> rules to determine whether the .oct file will work with the Octave libraries
> that are currently being used?
> 
> In any case, since the API version is supposed to do the same thing as the
> shared library version, I think they should be updated at the same time.

Ok, then the default branch should remain "api-v53" until just before
the Octave 6 release?

-- 
mike

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature