Andy Bierman <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Versioning has come up in previous conversations I've been a part of, >> >> and I was led to believe that it does not really exist for yang >> >> modules. That is, if you update a published module it's a completely new >> >> model with no-expectation of compatibility with previous models. >> > >> > Please see section 10 of RFC 6020. >> >> Ok, so I either misunderstood, or was misled. :) >> >> So my reading of section 10 is that a new revision is the "bump the >> minor" action, and a new module is required for "bump the major". >> >> > > There are no major or minor revision numbers in YANG. > There are on revision date strings YYYY-MM-DD.
I thought that was the point I was making (the ""s being a reference to my earlier mail), sorry for being confusing. Chris. > > > >> Thanks, >> Chris. >> >> > Andy > > >> >> > >> >> Is it the case that there's no way to "bump the minor version" of a >> >> model (i.e., you make only additions, but no deletions or changes to >> >> meaning so that the model can be considered backward compatible)? >> > >> > All rules in section 10 of RFC 6020 are backwards compatible. >> > >> > Also note that you can deprecate and obsolete nodes and define new >> > nodes in the same module. >> > >> > >> > >> > /martin >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> >>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
