[gdal-dev] GDAL 3.1.0 RC2 available

[Even Rouault]

> Why wasn't the SONAME bumped to reflect the ABI breakage?

For me, SONAME bump was meant for the C ABI. I don't think this was intended for the C++ 
one.

> We dropped the virtual dependency that required rebuilding for every
> GDAL version change because you claimed that this wasn't required any more.

There has been obviously a misunderstanding. The rule we follow is that:
- between GDAL X.Y.Z and X.Y.(Z+1), both C and C++ ABI are stable
- between GDAL X.Y and X.(Y+1), the C ABI is stable, but the C++ one not

And this is what we have in our release procedure:
"""
4) Update LIBGDAL_CURRENT/REVISION/AGE macros in GDALmake.opt.in.
   - For a release with no interface changes just bump REVISION.
   - Adding interfaces, bump CURRENT/AGE, set REVISION to 0.
   - Deleting interfaces / compatibility issues - bump CURRENT, others to zero.
"""

So as interfaces were added, I bumped CURRENT/AGE and set REVISION to 0.
But maybe "compatibility issues" should also be understood to changes that affect the C++ 
ABI ?

I'm not sure about the resolution here. Should I do a RC3 that sets
CURRENT/REVISION/AGE to 27/0/0 ? Would that help ?

Even

-- 
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20200503/51d1bc1b/attachment.html>