> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Maxim Uvarov [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:33 PM
> To: Mike Holmes; Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] update version number from v1.0.3 to v1.0.4
> 
> On 04/30/2015 14:51, Mike Holmes wrote:
> >
> > On 30 April 2015 at 06:55, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi,
> >
> >     This time it is appropriate to bump the ODP_VERSION_API_MINOR,
> >     since "api: time: force time defines as ULL to avoid computation"
> >     actually changed the API signature visible to the application. But
> >     I question if previous increments to *API version* were necessary.
> >     For example, here are listed all API changes between APIs v1.0.2
> >     and v1.0.3 ...
> >
> >     git diff  v1.0.2..v1.0.3 -- include/odp
> >
> >     diff --git a/include/odp/api/version.h b/include/odp/api/version.h
> >     index ae1cf0d..3338559 100644
> >     --- a/include/odp/api/version.h
> >     +++ b/include/odp/api/version.h
> >     @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ extern "C" {
> >       * to the API. For an API with common generation and major
> >     version, but with
> >       * different minor numbers the two versions are backward
> compatible.
> >       */
> >     -#define ODP_VERSION_API_MINOR 2
> >     +#define ODP_VERSION_API_MINOR 3
> >
> >      /**
> >       * Returns ODP API version string
> >
> >
> >
> >     git diff  v1.0.2..v1.0.3 -- platform/linux-generic/include/odp
> >
> >
> >
> >     .. absolutely nothing, but still we have another API version out
> >     there. ODP release/validation suite/linux-generic implementation
> >     version can be combined into one number, but it should be
> >     different from the ODP API version number. Today the API version
> >     should be actually v1.0.1.
> >
> >
> > Completely agree  should have been bumping ODP_VERSION_IMPL_STR - not
> > sure how we did not pick up on that prior. The docs dont describe that
> > well either.
> 
> 
> Because we also update validation test suite, which also needs it's
> number increased somewhere and we have only API_MINOR for that.
> 
> Maxim.


The validation suite must have its own version numbering scheme (separate from 
the API) since it will also have bugs. A suite has test cases against a 
specific API version (e.g. API v1.0.1), but may not be complete and may have 
known/unknown bugs, etc. The suite version number is bumped every time the 
suite is modified e.g. from v1.0.1-4 to v1.0.1-5. Basically each API version 
would have a matching validation suite, but we may skip some API versions and 
publish validation suites only for certain (good / important) API versions. 
E.g. a list of latest suite versions could be v1.0.1-5 (for API v1.0.1), 
v1.0.3-2 (for API v1.0.3), ...

It's another topic if we want to combine validation suite and reference 
implementation (linux-generic) release cycles and version numbering ... which 
makes sense since it indicates on which implementation (version) the suite was 
tested on.


-Petri

_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp

Reply via email to