On 01/10/2014 13:36, Ian McNicoll wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > I agree with all you haver said but would stick to my original > assertion that for *practical' and computable purposes, in terms of > fitness to be used in an operational system and adherance to the > version number rules, v0.0.1 and v1.0.1-unstable are identical.
I don't see how that can be. The former is for some uncontrolled archetype from an unmanaged external location, and the latter is a post v1.0.0 archetype in development, after having been published as v1.0.0.... > > Both, when published will end up as V1.0.0, both are unstable. in entirely different ways. the v0 isn't technically under development in CKM until you start working on it. That might be 6 months after upload. > > I can see the human argument for differentiating a truly feral > archetype from one in a controlled repository but am not convinced > that this outweighs the hassle of supporting V0 in ADL1.4. in ADL 1.4? I don't know, but the identification and versioning rules for CKM , even while it still has 1.4 archetypes, needs to be of the 1.5 variety. > > When we move to ADL1.5 tooling and downstream systems will need to be > changed in any case, so perhaps that is the point to formally > introduce V0? I thought the whole point was to introduce new style versioning (namespaces, 3 part version ids, extra meta-data) into CKM now? If so, why would we not include 'v0', which is part of that spec? - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141001/2a075ce3/attachment-0001.html>
