-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlHRnYMACgkQeiVVYja6o6Mm0gCcDSyykqkSg0zp0Z/SM3NUcl5W
QpEAnR3YFtgpHGU9WkFxRiAEythiuwaB
=QI6+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----