Open Stack

On 06/03/2015 05:45 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> If this doesn't match semver, then don't call it semvar versioning. We
>> should do what's right for the nova project, rather than try to fit with an
>> arbitrary set of versioning rules defined elsewhere.
>
> Semver is hardly "arbitrary"; it's well thought out and widely understood. I
> haven't heard a reason *why* nova can't work with semver, only that a few
> proposed version schemes don't follow semver.

Agreed.  If it means we bump the major version every release due to removing 
deprecated stuff then so be it.

Chris