[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On March 25, 2010, Elias Pschernig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Fjellstrom
<tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> > Might turn into the linux kernel that way, 5.0 forever! (or 2.6
> > forever!) Imagine a 5.0.33 release ;D
> >
> > So the only real reason to increment the "major" version is when the
> > ABI needs to break (ie: removing things). I can't recall a time when
> > that actually happened in allegro, things were just added most of the
> > time.
>
> There's a few things I'd remove and a lot I'd change in an incompatible
> way, if I could... :P
>
If you could ;) also changing an ABI is equivalent to removing the old one,
and adding a new one. So removing an ABI is really the only time a "major"
version increment is really necessary.
If the current version scheme is kept as is, there probably won't be an
Allegro 6 for 10 years. At least I can't fathom a reason the api would just
be changed wholesale again for quite a while. So at this point, I don't see
anything wrong with consolidating the version numbers a little.
--
Thomas Fjellstrom
tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx