[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       garnome-list
Subject:    Re: [g-a-devel] API Break? Bad versioning practice? Problems with
From:       Bill Haneman <Bill.Haneman () Sun ! COM>
Date:       2007-01-31 19:00:49
Message-ID: 45C0E761.1060206 () sun ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Li Yuan wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:04 +0000, Bill Haneman wrote:
>   
>> Hi Elijah, and Li:
>>
>> Since our atk, at-spi, and gail versions are all < 16, perhaps
>> we can and should sync the minor number with the gnome release, starting 
>> with the next releases for gnome-2.18 beta2 and 2.16.5+
>>
>> I don't think we need to follow what orca is doing, and sync the micro 
>> release and major numbers too, i.e. I don't think gnome-2.19.1 should 
>> have "atk-2.19.1", but I do agree that we should:
>>
>> 1) keep the minor number in sync with the gnome release where possible, and
>> 2) (implied by above) use odd minor numbers for 'unstable' releases and 
>> even minor numbers for stable.
>>
>> Sorry that we deviated from this scheme in the past 18 months or so, we 
>> used to use odd minor numbers for unstable but just stopped!
>>
>> Li, does this sound like the right thing to do?
>>     
>
> It is OK to me. So I should release atk, gail and at-spi 1.17.91 for
> GNOME 2.18.0 Beta 2, right?
>   
Hi Li;

I don't think it is necessary to use the same "micro" release number (.91).

1.17.0 would be fine, or even 1.18.0 if we are sure no API changes will 
be requested.

I think perhaps 1.17.0 is better for now, since we might ask the release 
team to let us mark a couple of things as deprecated in 1.18.0 (the 
community discussion about these small deprecations is still going on).

Best regards,

Bill
>
> Li
>   
>> best regards,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> Elijah Newren wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I know the accessibility folks are some of the most overworked and
>>> understaffed (despite their huge importance to the project), so I hope
>>> this doesn't come across as critical.  But there's a problem with
>>> releases that needs to be straightened out.  In short, it's nearly
>>> impossible to tell which versions of gail/atk/at-spi are meant for
>>> stable and unstable releases.  There might be API or other freeze
>>> breaks, or it may just be that the versioning system is very confusing
>>> and stable tarball releases aren't being made.
>>>
>>> at-spi-1.17.12 was released for gnome 2.16.1.  at-spi-1.17.16 is the
>>> most recent version.  at-spi doesn't follow GNOME version numbering,
>>> which is suboptimal.  One would normally guess that 1.17.16 doesn't
>>> have any feature/ui/string/api changes or additions and thus is fine
>>> for the 2.16.3 release (given that only the micro version number has
>>> increased).  However, at-spi-1.17.6 depends on atk>=1.13.  (cf.
>>> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400440).  Lack of following
>>> GNOME versioning makes life difficult here too.  The ChangeLog
>>> indicates that atk-1.13.x includes new API over atk-1.12.x and thus is
>>> not suitable for inclusion in the 2.16.3.
>>>
>>> gail has similar problems.  The ChangeLog indicates that 1.9.4 was
>>> specifically for gnome 2.17.4 (while 1.9.3 was specifically meant for
>>> gnome 2.16.1), but in this case I can't tell if there were any
>>> api/feature/ui/string changes or additions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for all your hard work,
>>> Elijah
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list
>>> Gnome-accessibility-devel@gnome.org
>>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
>>>   
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list
>> Gnome-accessibility-devel@gnome.org
>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
>>     
>
>   

-- 
garnome-list mailing list
garnome-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/garnome-list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]