On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Chuck Remes <li...@chuckremes.com> wrote:
> So, in my opinion, there is no reason to go off our own and develop a new > policy for version numbering. The semantic versioning policy is pretty well > understood and is widely accepted. Plus, even if it isn't perfect, it isn't > *wildly imperfect* either. Actually, it is imperfect, as I explained. Not sure about the level of wildness. But definitely broken in tangible ways. Specifically, the versioning requirements for the contracts (ABI, protocol) are different than for the implementation. We've been hit this several times in the past. Right now the consequence is that we have people wanting to improve 2.1.x (because that's what they run) and a 2.2 release would mean a whole new cycle, which we're expecting to happen on 3.1. > Pieter, I know you like to write these things up and experiment and I agree > that it is all for the good. We can simply state "all new code, period, must go into 3.1" but that goes against clear wishes from certain users. We can simply package these changes in 2.1.x but that goes against clear policy. I've no personal opinion here, but I am highlighting an increasing stress in our versioning (two people have asked to "fix" 2.1 in the last days). This does need discussion. Accuracy demands that we identify stresses and resolve them cleanly. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
