From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2602:43:5b6:8a00::1]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96B8077AF8 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 23:33:32 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Brannon To: Edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com References: <20160008145150.eklhad@comcast.net> <20160109082016.GA2925@122oven.adamthompson.me.uk> <20160009081254.eklhad@comcast.net> <20160109142626.GA6360@122oven.adamthompson.me.uk> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 23:34:37 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20160109142626.GA6360@122oven.adamthompson.me.uk> (Adam Thompson's message of "Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:26:26 +0000") Message-ID: <87pox04q2a.fsf@mushroom.localdomain> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Edbrowse-dev] Named Pipes X-BeenThere: edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Edbrowse Development List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 07:33:33 -0000 Adam Thompson writes: > I'm wondering if we should start work on 3.7 at this point, > hold off the release to get the major changes in. > This is going to be a big change and I'm not sure I want to have minor releases > differ quite so much when it comes to IPC. Really it shouldn't be a user-visible change. It shouldn't break your build, and it shouldn't break backward compatibility. So I'd say stick with putting it in a minor version number. Remember how big 3.6.0 was? But let's get past named pipes and IPC. Once we have them in, working, and well-tested, we can decide which version we want to put out next, or whether we want to keep going and try to add more features. We're good to go for a 3.6.1 though, I believe. Just give the word. -- Chris