Ok for a 0.24 release?

[Havoc Pennington]

On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 15:17 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 10:15 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 14:27 +0100, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> > > Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > > > davidz suggests that we go to 0.30 to help make visible the large
> > > > breakage.
> > > 
> > > How about maintaining backward-compatibility for 1 or 2 releases? I
> > > would really appreciate that, and I bet packagers and other developers
> > > will appreciate that as well, as it allows for a smooth upgrade rather
> > > that a large breakage.
> > > 
> 
> Havoc, how about at least bumping the libdbus 'current' version
> number before doing the 0.30 release? Today it's still at 0.0.0
> suggesting it wasn't bumped after the API changes that landed
> in 0.20.
> 

We can do that but it has limited value; there's no value to leaving
compat libs installed because they won't be able to talk to the new
daemon. So all bumping the soname will do is ensure you get an error
about missing shared lib with old apps, vs errors about undefined
symbols.

Are there other reasons to bump the soname?

I'm also kind of worried about having a soname of 100 by the time we get
to 1.0

Havoc