> On 27 May 2019, at 13:54, Vratko Polak -X (vrpolak - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at
> Cisco) via Lists.Fd.Io <vrpolak=cisco....@lists.fd.io> wrote:
>
> SemVer says:
> > Patch version Z (x.y.Z | x > 0) MUST be incremented if only backwards
> > compatible bug fixes are introduced.
> > A bug fix is defined as an internal change that fixes incorrect behavior.
>
> That means API version should be bumped even if the change
> only affects the implementation (and not API definition itself).
>
> In principle, if there is an internal change
> which has not fixed any incorrect behavior,
> SemVer says you are not required to bump the patch version.
>
> > multiple version of plugins can provide exact same binary API
>
> That could happen when the plugin undergoes such an internal change
> that does not affect behavior at all (at least not positively).
> Do you have a realistic example of that?
> All I can think of is renaming a variable, or similar silly examples.
>
> Either way, I think it is safe to assume that any plugin version bump
> can have at least some behavior consequence visible to user,
> so bumping API at the same time is simpler.
>
> Alternatively, we can change the plugin versioning scheme
> to acomodate "invisible" bumps.
> X.Y.Z.W (Major.Minor.Patch.Internal).
BTW We have plugins which doesn’t expose any APIs, by design….
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#13154): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/13154
Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/31757481/21656
Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io
Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
