In message <CAHEJ-S7Uww84Np+JhWYgTZ26Eo7oszK+y=w2o_njr8bfoor...@mail.gmail.com> on Fri, 21 Sep 2018 23:01:03 +1000, Tim Hudson <t...@cryptsoft.com> said:
> 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. In that case, we should probably just thrown away OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER and come up with a different name. If we keep that macro around, it needs to be consistent with its semantics as we've done it since that FAQ update. Otherwise, I fear we're making life much harder on those who want to use it for pre-processing, and those who want to check the encoded version number. I do get what you're after... a clean 1:1 mapping between the version number in text form and in numeric encoding. I get that. The trouble is the incompatibilities that introduces, and I'm trying to take the middle ground. > 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. > > 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. Sure. Would you mind writing up a quick proposal on a new encoding of the version? (and just so you don't limit yourself too much, it's fine by me if that includes abandoning the macro OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER and inventing a new one, a better one, with a definition that we can keep more consistent than our current mess) Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
