Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:43:53 +0400 From: Dmitrij Tejblum <tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru> To: obrien@NUXI.com Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include histedit.h src/lib/libedit Makefile editline.3 el.c el.h Message-ID: <199908201743.VAA42744@arc.hq.cti.ru> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:24:41 PDT." <19990820102441.A55100@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I actually had long talk with one of our toolchain people. The > > > conclusion we came to is that it *does* need to be bumped. (I was > > > checking on my bump of libreadline in -STABLE and the discussion applies > > > here too) > > > > I don't think it's generally useful for merely adding functions. Consider: > > We need to come up with an agreement here. It is clear as mud. Version bumps shoould be avoided if possible. What problem you want to solve here by major version bump? I don't see how version bump help anything in this case: Old program built with old library will work just like before with new library. New program that don't use new functions will work fine with both old and new libraries. New program that use new fuctions will fail if the new library is not available, whether you bumped the version number or not. So, there should not be any version bump. Dima To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908201743.VAA42744>