On 18 September 2013 19:44, Phil Blundell <p...@pbcl.net> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 18:24 +0100, Paul Barker wrote: >> I am planning on proposing that opkg explicitly >> follow semantic versioning (http://semver.org/) > > I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying here. Can you > expand on what the practical effect of "following semantic versioning" > would be? >
I was responding to Richard's comment about flag days. Basically, they should be very rare and will be announced very loudly if they must occur. They will result in the major component of the version being bumped (where the version is of the form "major.minor.patch"). So if something works with v1.0 of a program, you can be guaranteed that any v1.x release won't introduce backwards-incompatible changes and break your script/library/whatever. Even if opkg-utils is brought into opkg itself, it's a promise that library functions, command line arguments, config options and control fields won't disappear or change meaning arbitrarily. "Semantic Versioning" is just a set of rules that clarify this so that I don't have to write my own version numbering policy. -- Paul Barker Email: p...@paulbarker.me.uk http://www.paulbarker.me.uk _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
