Re: Issues with library version numbers

[Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>]

Hi,
	Sorry - that was all a bit over the top.

  1) I think you should add a caveat to your bugs: "maybe these weren't 
     every public functions, that needs to be checked out"

  2) I think we need to be even more clear about what we mean by ABI 
     compatibility. We don't include accidently exported symbols, we 
     don't include non-public APIs, we only maintain compatibility 
     between stable releases etc.

  3) Since GNOME maintainers work hard to ensure ABI compatibility is 
     broken, you should work on the assumption that ABI compatibility 
     hasn't been broken unless you've got *much* more concrete evidence 
     that it has been broken.

  4) We need to figure out a GNOME-wide policy on whether its 
     worthwhile to bump the mico shared library version and, if we do, 
     when do we do it? Each time a tarball is released with new 
     functions or just once a GNOME release cycle?

Mark.