On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Matt Sanford <m...@twitter.com> wrote: > > Well … > > The argument from me was that there is a material change and that > is the place of minor revisions. If this is an optional extension to > the existing protocol we should not change the revision at all. If it > is a minor change that requires a change to the base protocol rather > than an extension document, I call that a revision. This seem logical > enough to me but apparently I am in the minority, 1.0a it is then.
Why does this mean we should change the version code on the wire? > As far as voting and discussion … I was under the impression that > the 'Open' moniker sort of encouraged this. Must have been my > confusion, I missed the early on discussions. I'll read back in the > group some for more history. Discussion is great, but we need to have consensus, rather than leave 49% of the people disagreeing. > > — Matt > > On May 1, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Jonathan Sergent wrote: > >> Let me additionally say that this discussion is dangerous and voting >> is no way to design a protocol. What are the arguments in favor of >> changing the version number, and what are the arguments against >> changing it? I haven't personally seen any arguments in favor of >> changing it that explained the rationale other than "of course you >> should change it because you changed the version number on the spec". >> >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OAuth" group. To post to this group, send email to oauth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to oauth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
