On 21/09/18 14:01, Tim Hudson wrote:
> Semantic versioning is about a consistent concept of version handling.
> 
> And that concept of consistency should be in a forms of the version - be
> it text string or numberic.
> 
> That you see them as two somewhat independent concepts isn't something I
> support or thing makes sense at all.

The text form is fully consistent with semantic versioning. Richard's
proposal for the integer form is also fully consistent with the text
form, albeit encoded in a different way to the way you think it should
be encoded.


> 
> Our users code checks version information using the integer
> representation and it should be in semantic form as such - i.e. the pure
> numeric parts of the semantic version.

There we disagree. Richard's integer form *is* a representation of the
semantic form. There is nothing in semantic versioning that requires us
to only consider the numeric parts when encoding it.

> 
> This is the major point I've been trying to get across. Semantic
> versioning isn't about just one identifier in text format - it is about
> how you handle versioning in general. And consistency is its purpose.

It *is* consistent IMO. Your proposal is just different - it isn't any
more or less consistent - but it has the disadvantage of breaking stuff.

I don't think we are going to get to agreement on this point.

Matt

_______________________________________________
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project

Reply via email to