-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Restrict version naming in paths, module names etc. to SemVer major and minor but not patch #21
Comments
This should definitely be taken into account. I think we just messed this up in the current minor version. @jh-RLI |
As far as I understand, there is no consensus on this topic yet. I don't understand github as a platform to store different historically grown versions either, but right now this is our solution. If we want to maintain a new structure we have to do it in a bigger revision. Currently, I think it's best to store all versions explicitly. |
I agree. Unless there is a strong opinion post in this issue arguing for an adoption of the larger change with this release, I also propose postponing it to a possible future release. |
I think this needs to be discussed further as I am not fully aware of the reasons why this will break code. Some time ago we have introduced a new folder "latest". This should also prevent third party code from breaking when a new version is released (at least for the latest version)?! The old versions are still stored with full version name (e.g. v141). |
We will simplify the versioning for the OEP according to this idea starting from OEMetadata 2.0 |
Refactor version to v20 (2.0) in all files #21
Very satisfying to close such an old issue. Kudos to @4lm ♥ |
Hi all,
as discussed in OpenEnergyPlatform/omi#26 (comment) I would like to use restrict version naming in paths, module names etc. to SemVer major and minor but not patch. Refresh on what SemVer versioning means: link
v130/*
tov1.3/*
V130
toV1_3
This will give us the possibility to link (URL) to major and minor versions of our schemas, without breaking third party code in the future or making refactors concerning the version number necessary, if there is a patch (backwards compatible change) for a schema rolling in.
What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: