In message <> on Tue, 25 Sep 
2018 14:11:11 +0100, Matt Caswell <> said:

> On 25/09/18 13:54, Richard Levitte wrote:
> > In message <> on Tue, 25 
> > Sep 2018 13:37:45 +0100, Matt Caswell <> said:
> > 
> >>> And that is what semantic versioning is about - it is about the API.
> >>> So if you add to the API you change either MINOR or MAJOR.
> >>> In your scenario the moment you need to add an API you are doing a MINOR
> >>> release and if you already have a MINOR release under the MAJOR then you
> >>> need to add a MINOR on top of the latest MINOR that you have.
> >>> You don't get to make API changing releases that expand the API behind
> >>> the existing releases that are out there.
> >>
> >> Exactly. That is why I am proposing that each time we create a branch it
> >> is associated with a major release ONLY. You can't have two branches
> >> with the same major release because that means you cannot make MINOR
> >> changes on the older branch - even ones that we would historically have
> >> allowed.
> > 
> > Hmmmm?  If we have three major branches 5.0.0, 6.0.0 and 7.0.0, I
> > don't quite see what would stop us, technically.
> Is this exactly what I'm proposing? There is no problem if each major
> release is associated with a different branch. The problem comes if
> there are two branches on the SAME major version.

It seems I misread you, then.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the MAJOR release
base for our branches, what I still don't quite catch on is your
thinking around the release on new MINOR releases...  you seem to say
that they shouldn't be allowed, at least under certain conditions, or
always, and question is then, what's the actual difference?


Richard Levitte
OpenSSL Project
openssl-project mailing list

Reply via email to