Well …
The argument from me was that there is a material change and that
is the place of minor revisions. If this is an optional extension to
the existing protocol we should not change the revision at all. If it
is a minor change that requires a change to the base protocol rather
than an extension document, I call that a revision. This seem logical
enough to me but apparently I am in the minority, 1.0a it is then.
As far as voting and discussion … I was under the impression that
the 'Open' moniker sort of encouraged this. Must have been my
confusion, I missed the early on discussions. I'll read back in the
group some for more history.
— Matt
On May 1, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Jonathan Sergent wrote:
> Let me additionally say that this discussion is dangerous and voting
> is no way to design a protocol. What are the arguments in favor of
> changing the version number, and what are the arguments against
> changing it? I haven't personally seen any arguments in favor of
> changing it that explained the rationale other than "of course you
> should change it because you changed the version number on the spec".
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"OAuth" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
