It''s been almost a year since fontconfig 2.4.2 was released, and there are several useful bugs that have been fixed since then. I''m thinking this should be called fontconfig 2.4.3 unless people want me to reduce the number of digits in the version and move to 2.5. In either case, I''ve created a tracking bug (12917) for this release and would like to see some bugs added as blockers so we get an idea of what remains to be fixed before the release. I did fix a slew of bugs today; looking at the remaining open issues, I don''t see anything that stands out as ''must fix''. I will put together a release candidate as soon as we figure out what the next release version number will be. -- keith.packard at intel.com -------------- 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://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/attachments/20071025/4b21ae35/attachment.pgp
On 10/25/07, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:> It''s been almost a year since fontconfig 2.4.2 was released, and there > are several useful bugs that have been fixed since then. > > I''m thinking this should be called fontconfig 2.4.3 unless people want > me to reduce the number of digits in the version and move to 2.5.I''m just an observer here, but I think it would be preferred for the release to be 2.4.3 unless there''s an incompatibility with other 2.4.x releases. That would then imply that this release is bug fixes, which it appears it would be. -- Dan
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 06:45 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:> On 10/25/07, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote: > > It''s been almost a year since fontconfig 2.4.2 was released, and there > > are several useful bugs that have been fixed since then. > > > > I''m thinking this should be called fontconfig 2.4.3 unless people want > > me to reduce the number of digits in the version and move to 2.5. > > I''m just an observer here, but I think it would be preferred for the > release to be 2.4.3 unless there''s an incompatibility with other 2.4.x > releases. That would then imply that this release is bug fixes, which > it appears it would be.It does use a new version number in the cache files (necessary because I added the directory mtime to the cache data). Old versions of the library can read new cache files, but new versions of the library will refuse to use old versions of the cache files. Mostly, I was thinking that I would like to trim a digit off of the fontconfig release numbering scheme; otherwise it will be 2.4 forever, which seems unnecessary. -- keith.packard at intel.com -------------- 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://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/attachments/20071025/ce96f498/attachment.pgp
On 10/25/07, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:> > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 06:45 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > On 10/25/07, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote: > > > It''s been almost a year since fontconfig 2.4.2 was released, and there > > > are several useful bugs that have been fixed since then. > > > > > > I''m thinking this should be called fontconfig 2.4.3 unless people want > > > me to reduce the number of digits in the version and move to 2.5. > > > > I''m just an observer here, but I think it would be preferred for the > > release to be 2.4.3 unless there''s an incompatibility with other 2.4.x > > releases. That would then imply that this release is bug fixes, which > > it appears it would be. > > It does use a new version number in the cache files (necessary because I > added the directory mtime to the cache data). Old versions of the > library can read new cache files, but new versions of the library will > refuse to use old versions of the cache files. > > Mostly, I was thinking that I would like to trim a digit off of the > fontconfig release numbering scheme; otherwise it will be 2.4 forever, > which seems unnecessary.Those seem like valid reasons to me. If you do bump the minor version, could you put a blurb in the release notes about why? -- Dan