WCIF v1.1 & Versioning Policy #35
Conversation
specification.md
Outdated
| - Status: Latest | ||
| - Next Status: Stable | ||
| - Status Advancement Date: 2025-12-07 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand the real-world implications of this. What does "advancement from Latest to Stable" practically mean? And why did you pick the 7th of December?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Date change was completely arbitrary (and should obviously now be updated).
Latest and Stable are defined in the versioning policy - basically, Latest needs to be specifically requested, and Stable is the version returned by default.
This does need some tweaking now that we aren't including the H2H changes, and we aren't doing a major version update, though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Decided to just make this version Stable straight away, given that it's a minor increment
versioning-policy.md
Outdated
| - **Major**: increments upon _breaking changes_ - ie, changes that would cause errors in implementations relying on the current latest version | ||
| - Removing or renaming a field | ||
| - Changing a field’s type, or removing previously-available enum values | ||
| - Adding new field(s)/values which cannot be mapped to previous values |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"adding values which cannot be mapped to previous values" sounds like exactly the thing we're doing with Bo5 though?
So you're doing a minor release, but it contains something which per this description should be a major release. I am confused.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tried to add some clarity around that point - let me know if it makes sense
gregorbg
left a comment
gregorbg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Advancing to 1.1 straight away means that we would need to also touch code in the monolith, because it currently sends 1.0 hard-coded...
No description provided.