2012/3/15 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx>: > On 03/14/2012 07:51 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY<kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > Red Hat (nee Gluster) is about to release glusterfs-3.2.6. It's a >>> > bugfix >>> > release. No API/ABI changes (in theory, I haven't done an exhaustive >>> > check.) >>> > >>> > In f16 we released 3.2.5. Am I allowed to update it in f16 to 3.2.6? >>> > >>> > In f17alpha we also have 3.2.5. Am I allowed to update that at this >>> > point in >>> > time or is it too late? >> >> As long as it's OK with the glusterfs maintainer, and there truly is >> no ABI/API change, all of these should be fine. > > > In the end, does this not end up being a judgement call by the maintainer > even if that involves major numbering update/upgrade? In practice, yes, but the guideline is there to help keep things from changing too radically inside a stable release. A soname bump, for example, without perfectly coordinated rebuilds of dependant packages, could break applications. Then there are things like file format changes, config syntax, etc. -J > JBG > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
