git.net

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

Re: A proposal...


On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Eric Covener <covener@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

I agree with Eric here, new directives are sometimes the way to fix
something for those who need to, without breaking the others that
don't.

By the way, if we bump minor for any non-forward-backportable change,
who is going to maintain all the "current minor minus n" versions
while all of the new/fancy things are in current only (and minor keeps
bumping)?
I'm afraid it won't help users stuck at some minor version (because of
API/ABI) if they don't get bugfixes because their version doesn't get
attraction/attention anymore.
IOW, what maintenance would we garantee/apply for some minor version
if we keep bumping minor numbers to get new stuff out?

Not an opposition, just wanting to have a clear picture. Remember that
some/most? of us have never been actor in a new httpd minor release,
not to talk about a major one ;)


Regards,
Yann.