accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Semantic Versioning
Date Sat, 06 Dec 2014 18:43:11 GMT
Personally, I'm worried that trying to apply semver on top of 1.x as a 
whole is going to lead to more problems because we don't have 3 version 
"bits" to play with like semver expects. That was a big reason why we 
were going to align semver with 2.0.0 in the first place, IIRC.

dlmarion@comcast.net wrote:
> Christopher had asked for informal votes on, "releases [+1]:  start operating under whatever
rules we adopt as of the master branch," which to me means if we approve we adopt immediately.
IMO, putting off this decision is hurting us, see the other threads over the past week. I
don't believe that adopting semver now and applying it to 1.6.x and beyond hurts us in any
way.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Vines [mailto:vines@apache.org]
> Sent:Saturday, December 06, 2014 1:19 PM
> To: Accumulo Dev List
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Semantic Versioning
>
> I think there's an issue with this course of discussion because we're discussion issues
of our current 1.x release style while also discussion Semver, both of which are incongruent
with one another. Perhaps we need to segregate adopting semver for 2.0.0 (which is waht I
assumed), vs. adopting semver for our next release vs. adopting semver for some release after
the next but before 2.0.0?
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 1:16 PM,<dlmarion@comcast.net>  wrote:
>
>> >  " This basically represents a goal to not to add new APIs without
>> >  bumping the minor release."
>> >
>> >    I didn't think that with semver you could change the API in a patch
>> >  release. An API change, if backwards compatible, requires a new MINOR
>> >  release. Am I reading 6, 7, 8 and in the specification incorrectly? I
>> >  might need an example.

Yeah, you're right, Dave. Just re-read this myself. There is no concern 
of how APIs are changed in a patch/bugfix release because they are 
disallowed by definition.

The only way I would see this relevant is if we didn't adopt semver for 
this awkward [1.7.0,2.0.0) version range.

Mime
View raw message