[Geomoose-users] RFC-3: Release Process

[Eli Adam]

Please comment within 1 week if you want to comment on semantic versioning.

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Brian Fischer <bfischer at houstoneng.com> wrote:
> I would agree.  I think it is the way to go.
>

> [mailto:geomoose-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of James Klassen
>
> What is the opinion on the list of following http://semver.org/ for our
> version numbers (starting with 2.6.0)?

Generally favorable.

>
> I think we are more or less doing this already, but this would make it a
> little more formal and gives people a better idea of what to expect from an
> upgrade.

Yes we are close.  However, to quote: "close" isn't good enough.  The
whole thing about semantic versioning is to be strict.

Now there would be even and odd minor releases (in the context of
major.minor.patch) so trunk would become 2.7.  After yesterday's
meeting, I was just about to change sphinx-docs/source/conf.py from
2.6 to 2.8 but will hold off.

>
> The biggest part is we need to define exactly of what our public API
> consists.  We have a start at this with the GeoMOOSE.* namespace, but there
> are other parts that we should consider too like the mapbook and the service
> protocols.
>

Agree.

I have a slight concern that our versions could become 'funny' or
meaningless (I'm using firefox version 13 something now).  Being
strict on semantic versioning means minor backwards compatibility
changes make a new major release.  Some of our backwards compatibility
changes happen in gradual slow ways, rather than drastic fast ways.  I
guess that just means that we have a higher version number.

Bests, Eli