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
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... |