From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:
Date: 1999-10-06 23:00:56
Message-ID: 15307.939250856@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> How about version numbering libpq properly? It has been 2.0 ever since I
> can remember (not very long :). At least do ++0.0.1 when you change
> something. Is there any particular reason why this is not done?

We've been pretty lax about version numbering during development cycles.
It could be a problem if you are keeping several versions around,
I suppose. But I think what you are asking for is a major-version bump
anytime a subroutine gets added (else it's not going to help a dynamic
linker distinguish two versions anyway). That seems not very workable.

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Roland Roberts 1999-10-07 03:26:03 Re: [HACKERS] psql Week 1
Previous Message Vadim Mikheev 1999-10-06 22:28:32 WAL Bootstrap/Startup/Shutdown committed...