From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org  Fri Jul 29 19:01:18 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D6ABA830F
 for <freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Fri, 29 Jul 2016 19:01:18 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DA91301
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 19:01:18 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix)
 id 6F93ABA830E; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 19:01:18 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F36ABA830D
 for <arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 19:01:18 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "*.netplex.net", Issuer "RapidSSL SHA256 CA - G3" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 377C71300;
 Fri, 29 Jul 2016 19:01:17 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
 by mail.netplex.net (8.15.1/8.15.1/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id u6TIra3P042400;
 Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:53:36 -0400
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net)
X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by
 milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9]);
 Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
To: Ed Schouten <ed@nuxi.nl>
cc: arch@freebsd.org, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: lib/libc/Versions.def: new symbol version for 12.x
In-Reply-To: <CABh_MKnZkd3U0jV07idrpHqaniZvzUbhnSHz3BpAAKOi7d807Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1607291445570.11109@sea.ntplx.net>
References: <CABh_MKnZkd3U0jV07idrpHqaniZvzUbhnSHz3BpAAKOi7d807Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 19:01:18 -0000

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Ed Schouten wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> In a couple of weeks from now I'm going to add new versions of
> basename() and dirname() to libc that are thread-safe. These should
> now use symbol version "FBSD_1.5", but a question that emaste@ and I
> have is: why don't these symbol version names follow the major
> versions of FreeBSD? As in, why not call this "FBSD_12.0" instead?

New symbol versions can be rolled back to -stable or other prior
baselines.  Also, if there are no changes in a major release branch,
there's no need to bump the symbol version.  It's just an arbitrary
number somewhat tied to major release versions by convention.  I
started it at 1.0 when I first added symbol versioning, so you can
probably blame me ;-)

-- 
DE