[geomoose-psc] 2.9.1 vs 2.10.0

[James Klassen]

>From semver.org

Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:

   1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
   2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible
   manner, and
   3. PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.

Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as
extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format.
=

I would vote for this being viewed from the users of our API's perspective,
not the project's perspective.  The point of semantic versions is to
communicate the level and type of change they can expect.  In our case our
API is defined as the mapbook format, the javascript GeoMOOSE namespace,
and the services interface.  Notable things that aren't listed that maybe
should be might be general user experience (that would require retraining)
and something covering the PHP services in the demo parcel application and
maybe the layout of the demo.

To me the grid extension is (1) an extension, not core and (2) a bit of a
technology preview as there are many known deficiencies yet particularly
when dealing with more than one layer, so updates to that wouldn't force a
2.10 in my mind.

Changing the functional defaults (including the grid extension by default)
may be going too far for a 2.9.1.

The rest seem to clearly fall into a 2.9.1.

Technically breaking changes should force a 3.0.



On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Dan Little <theduckylittle at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> Jim and I are working on some improvements to the 2.9 version of
> GeoMoose.  I'm hoping to have something in the next month or so.  It
> will feature:
>
> * Various bug fixes as we find them.
> * A slightly improved version of the Grid extension.
> * Grid extension by default (maybe?)
> * Some small improvements to the build system to make debugging easier.
>
> Given the rules of semantic versioning I'm not sure where this falls.
> The latter is definitely a change but it shouldn't be a breaking
> change and would be very close to a "bug fix" IMO.  The bug being
> "there are slow loading times for development".
>
> Opinions?
> _______________________________________________
> geomoose-psc mailing list
> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-psc/attachments/20160610/08e70cb9/attachment.html>