Re: [asterisk-dev] AMI/ARI versioning

2017-03-30 Thread Corey Farrell
On 03/30/2017 07:14 PM, Kevin Harwell wrote: [asterisk-branch-number].[minor].[patch] Actually, the proposal might be better represented as the following: [asterisk-branch-number].[major].[minor/patch] Or another way to state it: [asterisk-branch-number].[api breaking].[api non breakin

Re: [asterisk-dev] AMI/ARI versioning

2017-03-30 Thread Kevin Harwell
> > > [asterisk-branch-number].[minor].[patch] > > Actually, the proposal might be better represented as the following: [asterisk-branch-number].[major].[minor/patch] Or another way to state it: [asterisk-branch-number].[api breaking].[api non breaking] -- __

Re: [asterisk-dev] AMI/ARI versioning

2017-03-30 Thread Phil Mickelson
I think that's a wonderful idea! I use ARI only. Thanks! Phil Mickelson CBA Software, Inc. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Kevin Harwell wrote: > Greetings, > > (I believe this topic has been brought up before, but I was unable to > locate the thread) > > In theory, AMI/ARI versions follow th

[asterisk-dev] AMI/ARI versioning

2017-03-30 Thread Kevin Harwell
Greetings, (I believe this topic has been brought up before, but I was unable to locate the thread) In theory, AMI/ARI versions follow the semantic versioning pattern [1]. The major version number of each started at 1 (1.0.0) and is supposedly bumped when a new major version of the API is release