Re: RFC: Switch to a date-based versioning scheme
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 06:35:06AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 8:56 AM Andrea Bolognani
<abologna(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 11:58:01AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 04:20:24AM -0700, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > systemd is in a similar position as us, where they can't really break
> > > compatibility because too much stuff is built on top, so they just
> > > use an ever-increasing version number. Simple and effective. Why
> > > can't we do the same?
> >
> > Note systemd is not strictly single digit - their stable releases have
> > an extra digit.
>
> And we could do the same.
>
I will also point out that systemd switched to an integer specifically
so they could break everything all the time. The libsystemd library is
not intended to be considered stable.
And that's fine because for elf libraries, the software release version
is irrelevant. The ELF file itself has an embedded version that can
and does evolve separately from the software release version, in order
to expresss compatibility.
A libvirt release contains more than just the libvirt.so library & we
explicitly reserve the right to break compat for the libvirt-qemu.so
and libvirt-lxc.so libraries, while keeping libvirt.so unchanged.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|