[Oslc-Automation] Automation Specification version #?

[Vaibhav Srivastava]

Some information from the Architecture mgmt specs. on this area and what I
was referring to during today's workgroup call

http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/AmSpecV1
(Embedded image moved to file: pic09435.gif)
Thanks
Vaibhav




From:	Paul McMahan <pmcmahan at us.ibm.com>
To:	Charles Rankin <rankinc at us.ibm.com>
Cc:	oslc-automation at open-services.net,
            oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net
Date:	02/22/2012 03:48 AM
Subject:	Re: [Oslc-Automation] Automation Specification version #?
Sent by:	oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net



My instinct/preference would be to version independently from Core.  But
its really not a huge deal to me.

I am assuming here that future versions of Core will be an incremental step
on top of the previous versions and will maintain backwards compatibility
with them.   If that's not the case then I could see more of a need to keep
the domain spec versions in synch with the version of Core that they are
based on.


Best wishes,
Paul McMahan
Rational Software




From:		 Charles Rankin/Austin/IBM at IBMUS
To:		 oslc-automation at open-services.net
Date:		 02/21/2012 04:28 PM
Subject:		 Re: [Oslc-Automation] Automation Specification version
#?
Sent by:		 oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net



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


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



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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic09435.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 15393 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20120223/cd4e1c02/attachment.gif>