<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 03/31/2017 10:47 AM, Kevin Harwell wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM-yhnnX+LW6JPpPzz52NbdAyo-A2_n-RQ1YAF+53JZzDqdRPA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM,
Corey Farrell <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:git@cfware.com" target="_blank">git@cfware.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>
<div class="gmail-h5"> On 03/30/2017 07:14 PM, Kevin
Harwell wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
I think it's worth referencing a previous discussion on
this [1].</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, thank you! I looked for this and for some reason
my searches turned up nothing.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">I agree with Mark's idea that
having the ARI/AMI major version tied to the Asterisk
branch could lead to confusion, lead people to believe
that ARI 14.3.0 == Asterisk 14.3.0.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yeah I could see that causing confusion.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <br>
[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="gmail-m_5910520624141735308moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/2016-November/075964.html"
target="_blank">http://lists.digium.com/<wbr>pipermail/asterisk-dev/2016-<wbr>November/075964.html</a><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mark Michelson wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"
class="gmail_quote">2) Bump the major version of ARI for
each major release of Asterisk. We <br>
won't retroactively apply this to the upgrade from
Asterisk 12 to <br>
Asterisk 13. So Asterisk 13 will have ARI versions 1.X.Y,
Asterisk 14 <br>
will have ARI versions 2.X.Y, and Asterisk 15 will end up
with Asterisk <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">3.X.Y</span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"> </span></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm assuming the other numbers would just be reset
here? For instance when Asterisk 15 is released it would
it become 3.0.0?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think either way we do it the versioning ends up
being somewhat localized to the associated branch and the
major number can't change once set on a branch.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes each new major version of Asterisk would start with AMI and ARI
version X.0.0. Once Asterisk 15 is released with ARI/3.0.0 we can't
bump Asterisk 14 to also use ARI/3.x.x. Although the versions are
localized to the associated branch I think we should enforce that an
older branch of Asterisk always has a lower major version for
ARI/AMI.<br>
<br>
With version X.Y.Z, I think this should represent:<br>
X: architecture / Asterisk branch. On bump of X all bets are off.
X is associated to a specific major version of Asterisk but not an
equal number.<br>
Y: breaking change to existing features, but overall architecture in
tact. Might break/remove a function or event, ignore a parameter,
add a new required parameter, etc.<br>
Z: non-breaking change/addition: added optional parameter, new
attribute in response, new function/event (including from any new
module).<br>
<br>
So an app written for 3.0.0 should work unmodified against 3.0.1,
but may require tweaks to work with 3.1.0. An app written for 3.0.1
might work with 3.0.0, but not guaranteed if the app uses features
added to 3.0.1.<br>
</body>
</html>