[sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

[Matthew Talbert]

>
> As far as our version scheme, we used to follow linux kernel version
> standards of having x.y.z, even y as stable and odd as development.  As the
> linux kernel no longer does this, I supposed we still follow linux kernel
> versioning scheme :)  We should have a plan again soon.  We actually had a
> roadmap to 2.0 in Jira with versioning standardized again.  Perhaps we
> should relook at this.  But really, how big of a deal is it?  What real
> world difference does it make if we call it 1.5.12 or 1.6.0?  It hasn't made
> much difference for the linux kernel.  In principal, of course I agree we
> should try to make our version system say more than just 'it's easy to see
> this version is newer than that, but that's about it'.
>

It makes a lot of difference to packagers, and a few of them have
asked on this list previously about it with little to no response. In
general, packagers expect that point releases will not break API *or*
ABI compatibility.

As it's quite easy to comply with that understanding, is there any
reason not to? (Assuming of course, that SWORD cares about PR things
like getting into distros.)

Matthew