> On 18 Dec 2015, at 20:11, 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".
Very true, this is an excellent observation! But starting a new module also means (beside all other complications) that the revision history is discontinued, which is bad. It's like demanding that each time a library API changes, a new GitHub project has to be started. Cheers, Lada > > Thanks, > Chris. > > >> >>> 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 > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
