Re: [asterisk-dev] AMI/ARI versioning

2017-04-05 Thread Kevin Harwell
In order to bring this topic to conclusion I think we'll move forward with the following versioning model for AMI and ARI since it seems to have garnered the most votes: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH Where the following definitions apply: MAJOR - changes when a new major version of Asterisk is released

Re: [asterisk-dev] AMI/ARI versioning

2017-03-31 Thread Matt Fredrickson
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Corey Farrell wrote: > On 03/31/2017 10:47 AM, Kevin Harwell wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Corey Farrell wrote: >> >> On 03/30/2017 07:14 PM, Kevin Harwell wrote: >> I think it's worth referencing a previous

Re: [asterisk-dev] AMI/ARI versioning

2017-03-31 Thread Corey Farrell
On 03/31/2017 10:47 AM, Kevin Harwell wrote: On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Corey Farrell > wrote: On 03/30/2017 07:14 PM, Kevin Harwell wrote: I think it's worth referencing a previous discussion on this [1]. Yes, thank you! I looked for

Re: [asterisk-dev] AMI/ARI versioning

2017-03-31 Thread Daniel Journo
I agree with Mark's idea that having the ARI/AMI major version tied to the Asterisk branch could lead to confusion, lead people to believe that ARI 14.3.0 == Asterisk 14.3.0. Is it possible to use letters instead of numbers to avoid confusion? ARI 14.A.1 ? Or use numbers which aren’t

Re: [asterisk-dev] AMI/ARI versioning

2017-03-31 Thread Kevin Harwell
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Corey Farrell wrote: > On 03/30/2017 07:14 PM, Kevin Harwell wrote: > I think it's worth referencing a previous discussion on this [1]. > Yes, thank you! I looked for this and for some reason my searches turned up nothing. > I agree with

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

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,

[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