[zeromq-dev] Backport of ZMQ_RCVTIMEO/ZMQ_SNDTIMEO to 2.1.x

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Tue Apr 3 18:49:15 CEST 2012

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Chuck Remes <lists at chuckremes.com> wrote:

> So, in my opinion, there is no reason to go off our own and develop a new policy for version numbering. The semantic versioning policy is pretty well understood and is widely accepted. Plus, even if it isn't perfect, it isn't *wildly imperfect* either.

Actually, it is imperfect, as I explained. Not sure about the level of
wildness. But definitely broken in tangible ways.

Specifically, the versioning requirements for the contracts (ABI,
protocol) are different than for the implementation. We've been hit
this several times in the past.

Right now the consequence is that we have people wanting to improve
2.1.x (because that's what they run) and a 2.2 release would mean a
whole new cycle, which we're expecting to happen on 3.1.

> Pieter, I know you like to write these things up and experiment and I agree that it is all for the good.

We can simply state "all new code, period, must go into 3.1" but that
goes against clear wishes from certain users.

We can simply package these changes in 2.1.x but that goes against clear policy.

I've no personal opinion here, but I am highlighting an increasing
stress in our versioning (two people have asked to "fix" 2.1 in the
last days).

This does need discussion.

Accuracy demands that we identify stresses and resolve them cleanly.


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list