TagLib 1.10 BETA Released

[Tsuda Kageyu]

Hi Tony,

It's a common practice in software versioning. For example, Linux kernel
releases were like 3.9 -> 3.10 -> 3.11...

2015-08-30 15:09 GMT+09:00 Tony Pombo <mcp at technologist.com>:

> I don't like 1.10, because mathematically 1.10 < 1.9
>
> Had the existing versions been 1.01 ... 1.09, then 1.1[0] makes sense, but
> too late.
>
> I guess the only next logical version is 1.91 or 2.0
>
> On Aug 30, 2015 1:59 AM, Robin Stocker <robin at nibor.org> wrote:
> >
> > Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> One small nitpick, should internal
> > > >> TAGLIB_LIB_VERSION_STRING (1.10.0) be expected to match the
> > > >> tarball
> > > >> (1.10)
> > > >> version ?  If so, they currently do not.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I didn't have that as a goal, but I see no reason why not remove
> > > > the .0
> > > > from the string.
> > >
> > > I'd personally prefer consistency that the last digit always be
> > > included
> > > (why treat 1.10.0 differently than say 1.10.1) ?
> >
> > +1, that's also what Semantic Versioning uses (which many projects
> > have adopted):
> >
> > http://semver.org/
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Robin
> > _______________________________________________
> > taglib-devel mailing list
> > taglib-devel at kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/taglib-devel
> _______________________________________________
> taglib-devel mailing list
> taglib-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/taglib-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/taglib-devel/attachments/20150830/4a432920/attachment.html>