On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 11:17 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 07/01/2013 11:13 AM, Russell Doty wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 17:03 +0200, Jan Safranek wrote:
>> On 07/01/2013 04:36 PM, Russell Doty wrote:
>>> Do we want to key the MOF files to a RHEL specific X.Y.Z
>>> versioning, or have an OpenLMI version for the MOF files? If
>>> the latter, do we want to version on a Provider by Provider
>>> basis, or have a single version for OpenLMI?
>
>> Various OpenLMI providers have different releases,
e.g.
>> -Providers was released several times while Storage was released
>> only once in past months. I'd like to have the API versions
>> separate.
> How about having a single X version across all of OpenLMI, and let
> Y and Z vary by Provider?
I think you're conflating version types.
What Jan is talking about here is a *functional* version that
identifies the version of the API that is being served.
You're talking more about a *marketing* version which is for
appearances only. This is better directed at the tarball/package
versioning and not the API.
Please see my responses in this thread for an understanding of how an
API versioning should work.
How do we deal with OpenLMI Version 1, OpenLMI Version
2, OpenLMI
Version 3, etc.?