Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-versioning" drafts

[Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 05:54:40PM +0000, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:

> > - I prefer to have non-backwards compatible changes marked and
> >   explained in the modules instead of relying on some schema
> >   comparison algorithm.
> >
> > [JMC] IMHO, the algorithm is useful in addition to any per-module notation as the tooling can provide a clear, consolidated report of the overall compatibility.
> >
> 
> Sure, years ago I implemented smidiff, but then assuming that every
> reader has the proper tools is likely wrong. And while tools can spot
> differences, they lack the ability to give explanations or advice how
> to adapt to changes. NBC changes deserve to be documented where they
> take place. Tooling can spot missing documentation.
> 
> [JMC] We have per-module notation, and we discussed general per-node tags (though they were moved to schema comparison as you point out).  Part of this oscillation is due to changes in feedback over time, and I am unclear the best path forward on this issue.  Myself, personally, I would be okay bringing back the per-node tags as I agree with your point above.
> 

The module revision derives from the changes, hence hiding the changes
behind a module revision label and suggesting tools to find the
details is really backwards.

It is relatively pointless whether a module is at revision a.b.c or
d.e.f, as long as the definitions imported and used from that module
have no NBC changes, the module revision label does not matter for
this particular import. If Rob's story is true that NBC changes are
rare, then marking them where they occur seems the simplest and most
effective solution.

/js

-- 
Jürgen Schönwälder              Constructor University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://constructor.university/>