[Oslc-Automation] Automation Specification version #?

[Charles Rankin]

I favor version numbers that aren't linked to core, but not so much that 
I'm going to stand in front of a truck. :)

So long as the core group doesn't mind V.R release numbers (e.g., 2.1) 
then it should work out "ok" for most circumstances. 

Charles Rankin
Rational CTO Team -- Mobile Development Strategy
101/4L-002 T/L 966-2386




From:
Michael F Fiedler/Durham/IBM at IBMUS
To:
oslc-automation at open-services.net
Date:
02/21/2012 03:09 PM
Subject:
[Oslc-Automation] Automation Specification version #?




In the 9 February Automation workgroup meeting we had a short conversation
on the numbering of the Automation spec.   The OSLC Core workgroup is
suggesting that specifications number themselves with the same version
number as the OSLC Core spec they are adopting.   For Automation, this
would mean a version of 2.0.   Some pros and cons discussed were:

Pros:
    - Easy to tell which "generation" of specifications Automation lines 
up
with (Core 2.0, CM 2.0, QM 2.0, etc)
    - Minor updates can use dot-release numbers if necessary (2.1, 2.2) 
and
still show relationship to Core

Cons
  - Does not reflect true maturity of the skip
  - Major new spec versions based on same core might be forced to use
dot-release numbering

Strong opinions for either option?   We can discuss at the next WG 
meeting.

Regards,
Mike



_______________________________________________
Oslc-Automation mailing list
Oslc-Automation at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20120221/e5652cc3/attachment-0003.html>