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.
dlmar...@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:vi...@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,<dlmar...@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.
