On Dec 22, 2007 8:02 AM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> version: 2.01
> >> api_version: 2.0
> >> api_compatibility: 1.4
> >> stability: high
> >> release_type: bugfix
> >>
> >> What this would communicate is that this is version 2.01, a bugfix
> >> release. It implements the same API as version 2.0. It's backwards
> >> compatible to version 1.4. The author considers it very stable.
> >
> > Is that "API stable" or "no major bugs" stable?
>
> I was thinking "no major bugs" stable. API stability is implicit in the
> statement of backwards compatibility and release type... maybe. Point is, the
> two concepts are separate.
Given that you've got two "api_" keys, maybe that calls for
api:
version: 2.0
compatibility: 1.4
That would also imply a cleaner break from the distribution version number.
> Or there's Debian's tiers of "experimental", "unstable", "testing" and
> "stable".
Having a tightly specified list with some external tradition
associated with it would be helpful. I like these well enough.
> It's also possible that "release_type" and "stability" are really saying
> basically the same things.
No -- I think one could have a release_type:bugfix for a
stability:stable distribution. Or for that matter,
release_type:security on a stable distribution. It's an important
distinction.
Among other things, it would allow for an indexer to maintain things
like a list of recent security releases, etc.
Regards,
David
