Re: Version in MOF files

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.