Version in MOF files

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Mon Jul 1 15:17:23 UTC 2013


-----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-----


More information about the openlmi-devel mailing list