Re: more bugs in branch-2-0/HEAD

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 10:35:32PM CEST:
> Charles Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Huh?  Right now (on cygwin) the shared library built by 1.5.x libtool is
> > "cygltdl-3.dll"  (e.g. current - age == 3).
> > 
> > Somebody somewhere already bumped the c:r:a numbers in HEAD because
> > libtool-HEAD on cygwin creates cygltdl-6.dll.  So which previous
> > **releases** of libltdl are you trying to distinguish from, here, Ralf?
> 
> My thoughts too at first, but checking 1.9f current was already 6, and
> this is an incompatible change with 1.9f.

First this, and besides I was referring to this policy in HACKING:
| * Double check that libltdl version number updates weren't forgotten
|   since last release (they should be updated in CVS along with commits
|   that require it so that users can work with CVS snapshots).

which, I believe, stems from the fact that somebody needed post-1.5
stuff but with 2.0 not in sight.

So while we are at it, it might be a good idea to remove the
parenthesized part..

> > libtool's own documentation recommends to its users that they manage
> > c:r:a numbers so that they do NOT increment them until actual releases.
> >  Otherwise thrash during the development cycle over-increments them --
> > like you're proposing now.
> 
> It depends on whether policy is to count alpha releases or not, but it
> seems reasonable to not trip up our alpha testers by trying to save a
> few numbers - we have an infinite supply after all ;-)

because this is not the whole truth.  Increasing versions comes at a
cost.  In some situations, this cost is high.

I agree with Charles that we should change this policy.  But that will
only work if we also change our release behavior (to release more
frequently).  And autotools interdependence requirements...

Cheers,
Ralf, enough babbling now, and off to reading patches