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
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
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
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
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
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
>
>
> [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]
--
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,
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