On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:14:20 -0500, Steve K Speicher <[email protected]> wrote: > As new specifications are being developed (and possibly new working groups > on the horizon), I wanted to get a basic policy in place regarding spec > version numbers. > > Here are some alternatives: > > #1 Coordinate numbers across all domains > > Set guidance that a WG spec will match its version number with "nearest" > Core version number that it is based off of. > If there is a need for minor spec update before next major version number, > using n.0 and then n.1. Take a concrete example, say a spec (Automation) > starts now and is based on Core 2.0, it will be Automation 2.0. > > #2 Provide loose guidance, workgroups can start at 1.0 > > State that if it is truelly the first, then just call it such. Take > example above, you'll have Automation 1.0 based on Core 2.0. > > #3 Say nothing > > I'm in favor #1, stating it as guidance and not a hard rule. > > Are there any concerns with this type of guidance? > Does anyone have a recommendation other than #1? > > Thanks, > Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 > > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net >
-- Olivier BERGER http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)
