dave at ast.cam.ac.uk
Thu Jul 2 11:29:59 PDT 2009
I agree with Doug and Guy.
Doug Tody wrote:
> If this were true I agree it would be crazy. But is a WD or PR a
> "standard"? I should think this would only apply to established
> standards that are already deployed. That is, to recommendations.
If the integer rule only applied to something that has been accepted as
VOSpace 2.0-yyymmdd (first WD)
VOSpace 2.0-yyymmdd (second WD)
VOSpace 2.0-yyymmdd (third WD)
VOSpace 2.0-yyymmdd (first PR)
VOSpace 2.0-yyymmdd (second PR)
VOSpace 2.0-yyymmdd (final PR)
VOSpace 2.0 (REC)
VOSpace 2.1-yyymmdd (first WD) (minor text changes only)
VOSpace 2.1-yyymmdd (final PR) (minor text changes only)
VOSpace 2.1 (REC)
VOSpace 3.0-yyymmdd (first WD) (changes to service behavior or xml schema)
I'd be ok with that.
I don't understand why we need it, but it would be ok.
To qualify as a minor version number the change would have to be pretty
small, possibly spelling corrections in the document. Anything else
would mean at least some changes to the client or server code, so would
automatically get a major version number.
More information about the semantics