Version in MOF files

Russell Doty rdoty at redhat.com
Mon Jul 1 15:23:40 UTC 2013


On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 11:17 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 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.
How do we deal with OpenLMI Version 1, OpenLMI Version 2, OpenLMI
Version 3, etc.?
> 




More information about the openlmi-devel mailing list