On 27/04/2011 10:32, Ian McNicoll wrote: > Hi David, > > Thanks for this, though I think these are still draft specifications. > I had some input into that document but with experience I am not sure > the revision rules really work for .v0 archetypes though the .v0 idea > itself is useful. The problem is that any structural version changes > would force us to move from v0->v1, which is what I think we need to > avoid for these first draft archetypes. Once an archetype is > published, the rules suggested (mostly) work just fine
for v1 and above, that is obviously true, but I think that slightly different rules could be used to allow a v0 archetype to 'tread water' at v0, with the 2 minor version numbers incrementing to indicate each change during this phase. - thomas
