> On 23 Dec 2016, at 12:30, David Bosschaert <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Bram, > > On 23 December 2016 at 11:02, Bram Pouwelse <b...@pouwelse.com> wrote: > >>> I think it would be nice if we could relax the policy at [1] a little bit >> and say that it is ok to release bundles with provisional API in versions < >> 1.0. The OSGi APIs always start their versions at 1.0 so an API version 0.2 >> will never conflict with an OSGi released API. >> >> That sounds nice but you can't have major changes in the provisional API >> (or you'd loose semantic versioning). >> >> > There is a somewhat unwritten convention that API < 1.0 is 'experimental' > and therefore that exported API in versions [0.0, 1.0) does not follow > semantic versioning... Basically what you're signing up to by using this > 'provisional' API which has a version < 1.0 is that anything could change…
Why not go for the empty version of 0.0.0 for such APIs then? I understand that there’s a need to express the fact that an API is still actively being developed and not yet final, but using versions in the range of [0,1) would make stuff just more complex given that they loose all semantics and are only “informational” for humans to parse and comprehend. -- Met vriendelijke groeten | Kind regards Jan Willem Janssen | Software Architect +31 631 765 814 My world is something with Amdatu and Apache Luminis Technologies Churchillplein 1 7314 BZ Apeldoorn +31 88 586 46 00 https://www.luminis.eu KvK (CoC) 09 16 28 93 BTW (VAT) NL8170.94.441.B.01
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
