Hi Melvin, On Mittwoch, 24. August 2022 19:41:49 CEST Melvin Keskin wrote: > What is the reason for having a state such as Stable or Final and a > redundant state (major) version?
I wish I knew. It's how it was always done™. > In my opinion, it would make more sense to have a separate state and > semantic versioning as specified by https://semver.org . Or, if for any > reason the state must be declared by the version, the version > scheme state.major.minor.patch as Zash said in xmpp: > x...@muc.xmpp.org?join would make more sense to me. The namespace would > then change when the major version changes. Developers as well as XEP > lists could quickly determine if there was a breaking change by > checking the major version. I agree. However, we have a huge corpus of XEPs which have not followed that scheme, which is why I think attempting to write down something in XEP-0001 for the versioning scheme is not going to work that simple. Even just the "a XEP MUST have a version of the form <major>.<minor>.<patch>" thing is not compatible with a huge amount of existing revisions. See the attic [1] for examples. Any ideas how to fix that -- *without* rewriting all XEP history and invalidating all existing version references -- highly welcome. When I first became editor I started to enforce minor and patch level distinction at least, but it's a tedious process and I'm sure I didn't always catch it. So we cannot really promise semver I'm afraid, neither for old nor for recent documents. kind regards, Jonas [1]: https://xmpp.org/extensions/attic/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
