I don't recall any specifics, just that in Nov/early Dec the tech team told us on a call that it was contemplating some potentially backward-compat-breaking changes. Not sure if those were ultimately agreed upon or what they were, but iirc the legal team took it as received wisdom and bumped to 3.0 (tech thought that the changes were likely enough and likely-big-enough that the spec would need to be 3.0).
The tech team would have more people who can speak to the specifics, esp. Kate and Alexios (and Gary). Best, Brad -- Brad Edmondson, *Esq.* 512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:41 PM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 02:27:19PM -0500, Brad Edmondson wrote: > > We discussed on the Dec. 7 call and landed on 3.0 -- I think partly > > because the spec was leaning toward 3.0 as well… > > Are we planning on breaking backwards compat with the spec? That > would be fun for me when I'm wearing my spec-editor hat, but less fun > for me when I'm wearing my SPDX-consumer hat ;). Are there any > breaking changes in particular that are driving a 3.0 spec? > > Cheers, > Trevor > > -- > This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). > For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy >
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
