On 10/25/07, Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 06:45 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > On 10/25/07, Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > It's been almost a year since fontconfig 2.4.2 was released, and there > > > are several useful bugs that have been fixed since then. > > > > > > I'm thinking this should be called fontconfig 2.4.3 unless people want > > > me to reduce the number of digits in the version and move to 2.5. > > > > I'm just an observer here, but I think it would be preferred for the > > release to be 2.4.3 unless there's an incompatibility with other 2.4.x > > releases. That would then imply that this release is bug fixes, which > > it appears it would be. > > It does use a new version number in the cache files (necessary because I > added the directory mtime to the cache data). Old versions of the > library can read new cache files, but new versions of the library will > refuse to use old versions of the cache files. > > Mostly, I was thinking that I would like to trim a digit off of the > fontconfig release numbering scheme; otherwise it will be 2.4 forever, > which seems unnecessary. Those seem like valid reasons to me. If you do bump the minor version, could you put a blurb in the release notes about why? -- Dan _______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
