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 email@example.com https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project