Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] build: commit to 0.10.0 release naming

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:27:09PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/01/2012 01:18 PM, Guido Günther wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:00:35AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > >> With 0.10.0-rc0 out the door, we are committed to the next version > >> number. > >> > >> * src/libvirt_public.syms (LIBVIRT_0.9.14): Rename... > >> (LIBVIRT_0.10.0): ...to this. > >> * docs/formatdomain.html.in: Fix fallout. > >> * src/openvz/openvz_driver.c (openvzDriver): Likewise. > >> * src/remote/remote_driver.c (remote_driver): Likewise. > >> --- > >> > >> I almost pushed this under the trivial rule, but realized that > >> anyone that builds an app against rc0 will be binary incompatible > >> with the .so post-patch. Are we okay declaring that rc0 is > >> unsupported so the ABI break is okay, or do I need to respin > >> the .syms portion of this patch to keep the LIBVIRT_0.9.14 > >> label even though we had no 0.9.14 release? > > > > If rc1 won't be too far in the future (so it can be pushed into distros) > > just changing the symbol names is probably good enough. > > DV said that rc1 might be as much as 3 weeks away. If distros want to > push rc0 out the door, and we decide to go with this patch as-is, then > distros should backport this patch on top of rc0 for minimal pain. yeah rc0 is not a release candidate, it's a snapshot, it's basically unsupported. It may not have compliled (it didn't in some configurations) it is a completely arbitrary upstream commit, like one of the ftp://libvirt.org/libvirt/libvirt-git-snapshot.tar.gz So your patch looks fine to me, i re-did it on my own too, so ACK