Hi Gary, others, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 09:40:05AM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Another couple of questions that turned up for me and are not > > dealt with in HACKING (resp. README-alpha): > > Thanks for catching these! We should capture the concensus in HACKING...
Yep. > > Do I have to increase the serial on libtool.m4 before releasing? > > Or after releasing? > > No, because people might like to use CVS versions (once their favourite > patches have been incorporated for example), and we want to support them > too. The serial on each M4 file should be incremented each time the > interface changes, independently of release schedules. OK. No change necessary for branch-1-5 then. > For M4 files on branches, we ought to be using cvs like `.' delimited > #serial numbers, otherwise a busy branch might end up with a serial > number that overtakes the trunk :-o Only version.m4 does this right at > the moment. Good thing I don't have to think about this ATM. :) > > Also the library version of libltdl in libltdl/Makefile.am, right? > > (libltdl hasn't changed yet from the previous release, but I will > > try to incorporate the memleak patch). > > Same answer -- in order to support people who use CVS versions of > libtool, the libltdl library versions should be incremented at the time > we change the interface. OK. > Supporting branched revisions is more difficult here, because we need to > be sure that a branch release doesn't 'catch up' with the trunk and > start using the same interface numbers that were once used on an older > trunk revision. I think the best way to prevent these problems is to > incorporate the branch number in the libltdl soname. Ouch. Let's avoid doing anything like that if we can. > I think -release > is ugly, but it is all we have right now. Releases from branch-1-5 > haven't used it thus far, and 1.5.16 doesn't break binary compatibility > with 1.5.14, so for branch-1-5 it is too late already I think. If you ask me, I don't want to see _any_ changes on a stable branch except incrementing REVISION, unless absolutely necessary. > For branch-2-0, I think we should start using `-release 2.0' right away. > Opinions? IMVHO no. We already have a higher CURRENT on branch-2-0 than on HEAD. We need just release 2.2 with a higher CURRENT than 2.0 and be done with it. All I wanted to do is increase REVISION, on branch-1-5. Thanks for answering so quickly. I'll post my proposed README as soon as I have it done (should be today). Regards, Ralf
