I favor version numbers that aren't linked to core, but not so much that I'm going to stand in front of a truck. :)
So long as the core group doesn't mind V.R release numbers (e.g., 2.1) then it should work out "ok" for most circumstances. Charles Rankin Rational CTO Team -- Mobile Development Strategy 101/4L-002 T/L 966-2386 From: Michael F Fiedler/Durham/IBM@IBMUS To: [email protected] Date: 02/21/2012 03:09 PM Subject: [Oslc-Automation] Automation Specification version #? In the 9 February Automation workgroup meeting we had a short conversation on the numbering of the Automation spec. The OSLC Core workgroup is suggesting that specifications number themselves with the same version number as the OSLC Core spec they are adopting. For Automation, this would mean a version of 2.0. Some pros and cons discussed were: Pros: - Easy to tell which "generation" of specifications Automation lines up with (Core 2.0, CM 2.0, QM 2.0, etc) - Minor updates can use dot-release numbers if necessary (2.1, 2.2) and still show relationship to Core Cons - Does not reflect true maturity of the skip - Major new spec versions based on same core might be forced to use dot-release numbering Strong opinions for either option? We can discuss at the next WG meeting. Regards, Mike _______________________________________________ Oslc-Automation mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net
