jefdriesen at telenet.be
Sat Feb 16 04:12:01 PST 2013
On 16-02-13 01:49, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Roland Dreier wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Dirk Hohndel <dirk at hohndel.org> wrote:
>>>> Ah, life is much better now, thanks to Jef actively working with us.
>>>> There is a v0.3 branch and v0.3.0 release and that is what we require
>>>> for Subsurface 3.0
>>>> I agree, the situation a little over a year ago when we did 1.1 and 1.2
>>>> was quite messy
>>> So the v0.3 branch will be ABI-stable?
>> Maybe ;) But that's what subsurface links against right now.
> Yes, it will be. Jef has done a great job keeping 0.2 rock solid stable
> throughout its life, I have no doubt that he'll do the same for 0.3.
Just to confirm what Dirk already said. Everything on the release-0.3 branch
will be fully backwards compatible with the v0.3.0 release. Only pure bugfixes
will go in that branch. No changes in API or ABI are allowed!
> Now we did not USE 0.2 during the 3.0 development cycle so we were exposed to
> the changes that happened in master before 0.3 got released, but that's more
> an issue of Jef's approach to version numbering.
> He jumps to the new version in master right after he releases the previous
> one. So master already claims to be 0.4.0 - I don't love this approach, but
> that's what he has chosen. As long as you stick with the 0.3 branch you'll be
The reason behind this post release version bump is that I want all development
builds to have a version number that is clearly distinct from the latest
release. That makes it a lot easier for me to deal with the troubleshooting logs
I receive from end-users.
More information about the subsurface