It might be a good idea to create a separate version number just for the TDB file format, so that TDB can be enhanced in ways that are backward-compatible with the file format without changing the file format version number. (Parliament uses this approach, and it has served us well.)
-Ian On Aug 28, 2013, at 4:09 AM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > Rob, > > +1 - Good idea. > > TDB might as well go to 1.0.0; ditto Fuseki to 1.0.0. > > 0.x.y version numbers seem to concern some people. > > TDB versioning has the added input that the file format on disk is important, > so having it's own version number makes sense to me. Fuseki relies > sufficiently heavily on TDB that its version number is entangled with TDB's. > > Andy > > On 27/08/13 19:20, Claude Warren wrote: >> +1 >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Rob Vesse <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Since we all seem to be in agreement that the next release will be 2.11.0 >>> rather than 2.10.2 because of all the new stuff we're putting in do we want >>> to go ahead and bump the versions in the POMs? >>> >>> Do we also want to bump versions for components like TDB that don't use >>> 2.10.2 e.g. 0.10.2 => 0.11.0 >>> >>> I will happily volunteer to do this >>> >>> Rob
