Open Stack

On 01/14/2015 08:40 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> The point was brought up that some recommendations that the working group
> forms will be jarring for APIs to implement when going from vN.* to vN+1.0
> for both developers and consumers. Client libraries often provide
> compatibility (or upgrade-path) versions to help bridge the gap between
> going from vN.* to vN+1.0. As a group, we’re looking for feedback from the
> developers on the following topics:
>
> - Does this seem preferable?

i think it's a really nice idea to have some sort of guidelines to 
assist with the development of compatibility version. i know i would use 
it =)

> - Does it sound reasonable and maintainable?

good question, my fear would be that we would start strong but fade once 
more than a few versions were published. having a clear procedure for 
updating and maintaining the guidelines might help.

> - Does it seem reasonable as a way of improving user experience and
> upgradability?

for me, yes.

> If you have a positive feeling for this idea, there are a couple
> follow-ups:
>
> - Should the API WG recommend a strategy for this versioning path?
> - If so, should the versioning path work like:
>
>    - vN.M -> vN.99 -> vN+1.0
>      We would use .99 to indicate that you it’s compatible with vN.* but
> also provides information/endpoints in vN+1)
>    - or vN.M -> vN+1.0 -> vN+2.0
>      In this case we would make N+1 be the compatibility version (perhaps
> do not allow increments of the minor version) and N+2 would be the version
> of the API that is fully in-compliance with the Working Group’s final
> recommendations.

this is an interesting idea. i think it would be nice if we could 
develop something that would be a clear indication to developers exactly 
which version and capabilities an api is presenting.

of those two options, i'm leaning more towards the vN.99 approach.

thanks for bringing it up Ian!

mike