On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 4:06 PM Heldt-Sheller, Nathan < nathan.heldt-shel...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Gregg, > > > > I understand your points… for what it’s worth we’re aligning with the > major.minor rev, and using the next point for bug fixes against a given > Specification. So 2.0.x will implement 2.0, 2.1.x will implement 2.1, > etc. There is also version info in the code, but we were creating a lot of > confusion on the very simple question of “which code version should I grab > to go along with verison x.x of the Specification?” > > > Houston, we have a problem. Totally understand what you're saying. Buleeeve me I've thought about it. Today it dawned on me: there's a very big difference between a protocol and a data model. OCF conflates them. Consider: OCF could radically change the data model with no effect on the protocol. Or vice versa. Then what does conformance mean? > Thanks, > Nathan > > > > *From:* Gregg Reynolds [mailto:d...@mobileink.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, July 28, 2018 1:30 PM > *To:* Heldt-Sheller, Nathan <nathan.heldt-shel...@intel.com> > *Cc:* iotivity-dev <iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org> > *Subject:* Re: [dev] IoTivity 2.0.0 release status update > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:42 AM Nathan Heldt-Sheller < > nathan.heldt-shel...@intel.com> wrote: > > Thanks Gregg, > > > > I tried to capture it in earlier notes to the list regarding tagging, but > we (OSWG, at a weekly CC) decided to change 1.4 -> 2.0, in order to make it > easier to determine which version of IoTivity implements which > Specification set. > > > > I understand the motivation but respectfully it seems like bad idea to try > to establish a semantic relationship between labels marking what implements > and what is implemented. > > > > It's easy to see how this can and probably will go off the rails. (Bug > fixes for both, enhancements for the code, etc.) The way to indicate what > protocol version is supported by code is to stick some info in the code > that says so. The version of the code text is a completely separate issue, > and also completely separate from spec. (Does Iotivity 2.1.x support OCF > 2.1 or just 2.0?) > > > IoTivity is indeed not the only implementation (actually pair; IoTivity > and IoTivity Lite are completely separate stacks). But IoTivity is > currently the “feasibility proof point” for OCF Specifications so OCF > Specifications must be accompanied by a corresponding IoTivity release > implementing all mandatory functionality. So while separate they are > definitely co-dependent ;) I’ll try to make this clear in the release > notes, too. > > Thanks, > Nathan > > > > *From:* iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org [mailto: > iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org] *On Behalf Of *Gregg Reynolds > *Sent:* Thursday, July 26, 2018 3:41 PM > *To:* Heldt-Sheller, Nathan <nathan.heldt-shel...@intel.com> > *Cc:* iotivity-dev <iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org> > *Subject:* Re: [dev] IoTivity 2.0.0 release status update > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 5:34 PM Heldt-Sheller, Nathan < > nathan.heldt-shel...@intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Gregg, > > > Yes the release notes will be posted to the Wiki along with the release of > 2.0.0 (and a link in the announcement email). These notes will include > known issues (any significant Jira tickets that are not yet resolved) as > well as a complete list of patches applied since 1.3.1. I also plan to get > a “new for 2.0” feature summary from OCF and repeat it with the release > notes. > > > > Well, I'm still a little confused about OCF 2.0 v. Iotivity whatever. > > > > There was talk about iotivity 1.4. what happened to that? > > > > Fwiw I think it useful to make a clean distinction between spec and > implemetation. Iotivity is not the only possible implemetation of OCF. > > > If there is other information you think would be nice to have, let me know. > > > > Thanks, > Nathan > > > > *From:* Gregg Reynolds [mailto:d...@mobileink.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, July 26, 2018 3:11 PM > *To:* Heldt-Sheller, Nathan <nathan.heldt-shel...@intel.com> > *Cc:* iotivity-dev <iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org> > *Subject:* Re: [dev] IoTivity 2.0.0 release status update > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 10:27 AM Nathan Heldt-Sheller < > nathan.heldt-shel...@intel.com> wrote: > > Hello Devs, an update on 2.0.0 release status: > > > > Unfortunately, there are still 3 or 4 Cert-blocking issues with IoTivity > 2.0.0-RC1: > > https://jira.iotivity.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20IOT%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20Assigned)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22IoTivity%20Bangkok%22%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20P1%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20DESC > > > Worth noting is that these are not regressions over previous releases. > These are issues that existed in 1.3.1, etc., but were not caught because > the tests that are failing were not yet added to CTT during 1.3.1 testing. > Because of this (the fact that previous releases have these same issues), > we may decide to release 2.0.0 with these issues unresolved if we can’t get > them closed very soon. The current 2.0.0-RC1 is still a big improvement > over 1.3.1 and we’d like to make it available right away. > > > > Sounds good. Do you have a complete list of changes? Thanks, that would be > great! > > > > However if we can get fixes for these done (and it appears a few may be > fixed very soon) then we will go ahead and make a 2.0.0-RC2 tag to capture > those fixes, and re-start QA for the final 2.0.0 release. > > Thanks, > > Nathan > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#9822): https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/message/9822 Mute This Topic: https://lists.iotivity.org/mt/23823285/21656 Group Owner: iotivity-dev+ow...@lists.iotivity.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
