[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A proposal...

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:08 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Eric Covener <covener@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Yes, exactly correct. We have three "contracts" to keep that I think aligns very well with the following semver "contracts":
>>> Major => API/ABI compatibility for modules
>>> Minor => Feature and directives
>>> Patch => Functional and configuration syntax guarantees
>>> Demonstrating by way of a few examples:
>>> If we add a directive but do not change exported structure, that would result in a minor bump since the directive is part of the feature set that would necessitate a config change to use (not forward compatible).
>> I don't agree that adding directives is adding function,  in terms of
>> versioning or user expectations.  I don't see why it a new directive
>> or parameter should necessarily wait for a new minor release
>> especially when there's so much sensitivity to behavior changes. It
>> seems backwards.
> As a general rule, adding a directive introduces a new feature, along
> with new functions, and structure additions.

I won't argue the semantics any further, but I don't agree there is
any such equivalence or general rule.

For me including this would poison almost any proposal it is added to.
In the context above: I want to use directives for opt-in of fixes in
a patch release.

Eric Covener