Re: OCTAVE_API_VERSION without '+' character?

[Mike Miller]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:17:52 -0800, Mike Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 14:27:18 -0500, John W. Eaton wrote:
> > Yes, and to say "this is a development version; interfaces may be changing
> > without a change in the version number".
> […]
> > The original goal of the API version was to avoid loading .oct files that
> > were compiled and linked with incompatible versions of the Octave libraries.
> > At one time I thought we could avoid needing the API version if we used
> > proper library versioning.  But now we don't link .oct files directly with
> > the Octave libraries, so I assume we still need this version number to
> > detect mismatch?  In place of using our own API version, could we encode the
> > liboctave and liboctinterp version numbers in the .oct file and use the same
> > rules to determine whether the .oct file will work with the Octave libraries
> > that are currently being used?
> > 
> > In any case, since the API version is supposed to do the same thing as the
> > shared library version, I think they should be updated at the same time.
> 
> Ok, then the default branch should remain "api-v53" until just before
> the Octave 6 release?

I've now updated the stable branch to "api-v53" for Octave 5.

After we merge this to the default branch, do we want to keep it
"api-v53" until we bump the library versions again just before the
Octave 6 release next year?

-- 
mike

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature