Versioning

[Matthew Graham]

Hi,

There is no change from Strasbourg: the integer progression is  
required for versions which are not compatible. Namespaces change  
between versions and so a client for one version cannot automatically  
be used for the next version as the namespace of the XML message would  
be incorrect ergo the version integer has to change to reflect this.

It was a major concession to get VOSpace 1.1 remain that and not get  
called VOSpace 2.0.

	Cheers,
	
	Matthew
	


On Jul 2, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Guy Rixon wrote:

> Well, version numbers are cheap...but this seem like an unwanted  
> side-effect. last I heard (Strasbourg, IIRC), the major-version rule  
> applied to the entire WD/PR/REC set with the intermediates being  
> distinguished by the date. Why the change?
>
> Guy
>
> On 2 Jul 2009, at 17:44, Matthew Graham wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You might be aware that the Document Standards v1.2 PR has just  
>> completed its RFC (http://www.ivoa.net/cgi-bin/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/DocStdRFC2 
>> ). I raised concerns about the proposed versioning scheme:
>>
>> "The document now states that there is an integer increment in the  
>> version number in the case where subsequent versions are not  
>> backward compatible. "
>>
>> and the response that has been posted is:
>>
>> "The Committee agrees that the version numbering scheme is  
>> challenging when dealing with namespaces and WSDL, and leads to the  
>> conclusion that when IVOA standards describe web services or have  
>> associated XML schemas, with namespaces that when changed, cause  
>> software to break, then these changes must both be accompanied by  
>> an increment to the integer part of the document and the associated  
>> "supplementary" files. This would not affect most of the standards  
>> documents, and should not present any real logistical difficulty,  
>> as there are a sufficient number of integers available to support  
>> any number of revisions. "
>>
>> This has greatest impact for this working group (GWS but I am also  
>> cross-posting to Semantics)  and essentially means that ALL (WD,  
>> PR, etc) versions of our specs with WSDL/XML/RDF documents  
>> (anything with a namespace) will only carry integer versions.
>>
>> So, for example, the progression of VOSpace 2.0 would actually  
>> proceed as:
>>
>> VOSpace 2 (first WD)
>> VOSpace 3 (second WD)
>> VOSpace 4 (third WD)
>> VOSpace 5 (first PR)
>> VOSpace 6 (second PR)
>> VOSpace 7 (final PR)
>> VOSpace 8 (REC)
>>
>> The next version would then VOSpace 9, etc.
>>
>> Although this is very much a procedural issue, I just wanted to  
>> flag it so that everyone is aware and happy with it before I approve.
>>
>> 	Cheers,
>>
>> 	Matthew
>