[ofiwg] post OFI 1.0

[Mccormick, Patrick M]

+1

I think the versioning scheme is not something that should be subject to preference or opinion: people have already figured out a scheme that fits all our needs and conforms with what distros expect.

I think the work here is documenting and implementing how these line up:

package version (ie 1.0.0)
FI API version
Exported symbol versions / .so version (libfabric.map)
(distros also have a release number that corresponds to modifications of the .spec or patches they carry and apply)

Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: ofiwg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ofiwg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 5:50 AM
To: Hefty, Sean
Cc: OFIWG Mailing list
Subject: Re: [ofiwg] post OFI 1.0

On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:50 PM, Hefty, Sean <sean.hefty at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> I went through the open issues list and identified areas for discussion by the OFIWG.  Please give some thought to these topics over the next couple of weeks.  These are potential features for the end of Q2 OFI release.  Assigned issue numbers are given in parenthesis.
> 
> * Should releases be 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. or 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3?

One random point: this might be useful reading when considering versioning schemes:

    http://semver.org/

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

_______________________________________________
ofiwg mailing list
ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/ofiwg