[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5156?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13556425#comment-13556425
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-5156:
---------------------------------------------
bq. It's possible that I'm simply stubborn
Well, you do switch arguments :). I though we agree initially that semver was
probably overkill for us with your "As for the patch version (Z), I think
you're right. I doesn't offer much value". So I was mainly arguing that even if
don't follow http://semver.org/, I'd still rather keep a 3 number version
rather than 2.
bq. to a less-structured ad hoc one
Let's not be too extreme in our judgement. All I'm suggesting is to follow
what's described by the first sentence here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Change_significance. Hardly
very ad hoc.
bq. I'm not seeing how moving from a widely-used, documented, structured
convention, to a less-structured ad hoc one will better communicate changes and
set expectations
All I'm saying is that imo a good way to fail expectation is to set them too
high. So I suggest no pretending we follow http://semver.org/ (which after all
calls itself a "specification", not "guidelines") unless we are, as a project,
very committed to do it. I'm not really honestly, and I don't think we're that
disciplined as a project. And bumping versions on a significance basis is just
easier (yes, because it's more subjective) and kind of very common imo.
> CQL: loosen useless versioning constraint
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-5156
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5156
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Assignee: Sylvain Lebresne
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 1.2.1
>
> Attachments: 5156.txt
>
>
> So far the CQL doc says the CQL language follows http://semver.org/. Meaning
> that a version is X.Y.Z where:
> * X is the major version and denotes backward incompatible changes
> * Y is the minor version and denotes backward compatible changes
> * Z is the patch version and denotes backward *and* forward compatible
> changes, i.e. change to the implementation.
> Now I don't think for CQL we have much use of the patch version. Not that
> knowing when implementation fixes have been done is not useful but:
> # The Cassandra version number already kind of cover that.
> # While a patch version would be more precise in that it would only concern
> CQL3 related changes, I have no illusion on our capacity in maintaining such
> patch version accuratly (and frankly, I don't blame us).
> So instead of keeping a number that will end up having no usefulness
> whatsoever, I suggest that we either:
> # remove it and have CQL3 version being just major and minor.
> # use that latter number as a sub-minor version, i.e. a version that only
> # denotes backward compatible changes, not forward ones. We would then bump
> the two last digit at our discretion, to denote some form of "importance" of
> the changes.
> I don't care much about which of the two we end up doing, but since we
> already have a 3 numbers version and since I kind of like the idea of having
> two numbers to convey a sense of importance of the changes, I'm attaching a
> patch for the 2nd solution.
> Note that the patch removes the changes section from the doc, but that's
> because I think it's useless in it's current form (on top of being
> inaccurate). I do plan on adding a new changes section that lists changes
> between CQL minor version as soon as we have some of those.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
