Gilles Rayrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 3. what appeared to us as a quite good solution is to maintain a > "version compatibility table" on carob's web page. We only keep > carob's numbering carob-x.y (x = major, y=minor), just like you > suggested and then, on the web page, we may have the following: > > carob version | compatible sequoia version > ----------------------------------------------- > carob-1.0 | sequoia-2.7 > ----------------+------------------------------ > carob-1.1 | sequoia-2.8 > ----------------| > carob-1.2 | > ================| > carob-2.0 | > ----------------+------------------------------ > carob-2.1 | sequoia-2.9 >
Nice example. The protocol can be seen as an interface and Sequoia can be seen as a library which carob links to. So this issue is finally not very different from numbering issues faced by most other projects which link to external librairies. I think everyone agrees here that the very first and most important message carried by the version numbers of a library is related to the compatibility of the _exported_ interface, and not related to imported interfaces (here: sequoia). On the other hand, it is tempting to advertise _both_, so it's true something like carob-7.0_sequoia-2.7 is tempting. But has anyone already seen something like: firefox-0.7_HTTPv1.1 ? Nope, because... HTTP always "magically works" thanks to backward compatibility which we don't have yet :-/ > eg. if you take a notation like carob-1.0-sequoia-2.7, this quite a > long naming ! moreover, it is a bit confusing: next version will be > carob-1.0-sequoia-2.8, or carob-2.0-sequoia-2.7. It does *not* look > like any known version numbering convention and I think that users > will be lost with this Yeah, they will probably wonder why numbers jump irrationally like nothing they have seen before. Worst: now imagine that you have some almost non-changing carob code which is compatible with sequoia 4.5, 4.6, 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2. How would number it? That is a big issue. > And same for libmysequoia/odbsequoia... Actually upper layers just need to state their compatibility against carob versions, the compatibility with sequoia is only indirect. They do not communicate directly with the controller and should not be directly concerned about protocol issues. _______________________________________________ Carob mailing list [email protected] https://forge.continuent.org/mailman/listinfo/carob
