[mpris] [RFC] MprisVersion method

[Mirsal Ennaime]

On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 08:59 -0500, Ian Monroe wrote:
> I disagree. I think we should use Qt-like versioning, where they only
> have a major change if it breaks ABI. Obviously we don't have ABI, but
> we have something like it: anytime we change a signature that could
> break current scripts it should be a major version increment. Having
> major version increment based on just on "acceptance"... is useless.
> 
> So we should start out at 1.0.0. If someone adds a few methods, that
> would like be 1.1.0. If we remove methods or change current methods,
> it would be 2.0.0.

Ok, I talked with Milosz Derzynski (BMPx) about that, and he agrees with
you. Also, with such a policy, we wouldn't need a microversion.

So I'm OK to stick with 1.0, for now with an increment of minor version
on feature addition, and major on modification.


> Anyways sorry for the silly mistake. :)

np :)

-- 
Mirsal Ennaime
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/mpris/attachments/20080322/de908bd2/attachment.pgp