On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:16 AM Viktor Dukhovni <openssl-us...@dukhovni.org>
wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Tim Hudson <t...@cryptsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > If you repeat that in semantic versioning concepts just using the labels
> for mapping you get:
> > - what is the major version number - the answer is clearly "1".
> > - what is the minor version number - the answer is clearly "0"
> > - what is the fix version number - there is no such thing
> > - what is the patch version number - the answer is clearly "2" (reusing
> the fix version)
>
> I'm afraid that's where you're simply wrong. Ever since 1.0.0, OpenSSL
> has promised (and I think delivered) ABI stability for the *minor* version
> and feature stability (bug fixes only) for the patch letters. Therefore,
> the semantic version number of "1.0.2a" is "1.0", its minor number is 2
> and its fix number is 1 ("a").
>
No it isn't - as you note that isn't a valid mapping - 1.0 isn't a semantic
version and there is no such thing as a fix number,
You get three concepts and then on top of that the pre-release and the
build-metadata.
Semantic versioning is about the API not the ABI.
So we could redefine what we have been telling our user all along and
combine our current major+minor in a new major version.
Making 1.0.2a be 10.2.0 in semantic version terms.
We cannot remove the current major version number - as that concept exists
and we have used it all along.
We don't just get to tell our users for the last 20+ years what we called
the major version (which was 0 for the first half and 1 for the second
half) doesn't exist.
Tim.
_______________________________________________
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
