Until Pulp actually goes GA I don't think we need to be concerned too strongly about semantic versioning. I agree that we should avoid painful changes unless they're truly necessary, though.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Dana Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Jeremy, for pointing that out! > > Those would definitely need to be handled at the same time if we make a > change. > > Wouldn't breaking changes lead to an increase in the x number due to > semantic versioning? > > Dana Walker > > Associate Software Engineer > > Red Hat > > <https://www.redhat.com> > <https://red.ht/sig> > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Jeremy Audet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> FYI, Pulp Smash integrates closely with Pulp's current pagination >> behaviour: >> >> - The page_handler >> >> <http://pulp-smash.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api/pulp_smash.api.html#pulp_smash.api.page_handler> >> response handler walks through pages of results and collects them into a >> single list. It's used extensively. >> - The pagination test case >> >> <http://pulp-smash.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api/pulp_smash.tests.pulp3.file.api_v3.test_pagination.html> >> "assumes that Pulp returns 100 elements in each page of results. This is >> configurable, but the current default set by all known Pulp installers." >> >> If pagination behaviour is changed, then this will break a significant >> number of tests. Also, introducing breaking changes into a fundamental >> aspect of Pulp's API during beta would be unfortunate. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
