Subject: [Netmod-ver-dt] YANG Ver DT meeting 18th Oct

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 14:44:15 +0100

Today's meeting agenda:

1) Try and close on requirements draft:
i) Is everyone happy with everything except defn on bug fix?
ii) Do we need to define bug fix (or equivalent with an alternative name)?

2) Definition of bug fix:
i) Do we need to distinguish bug fix vs enhancement?
ii) Do we need to call them something different (e.g. perhaps 
"correction" instead of "bug fix"?
iii) Is a "bug fix" always backwards compatible?
iv) Do we consider "editorial bug fixes" separately?
v) So we need to support nbc bug fixes (if bug fixes are not always bc)?
vi) Do we want a strict or loose interpretation of backwards 
compatibility when it comes to bug fixes? (This may depend on the 
versioning scheme)

3) Solutions draft:
- Should we be trying to publish this before the deadline?

4) Do we agree that vanilla semver does not and cannot meet the 
requirements? I.e. because it does not allow for bug fixes.

5) Perhaps discuss the versioning scheme that I put forward on Tuesday, 
or variants of it.

http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/netmod-ver-dt

Meeting details:

JOIN WEBEX MEETING
https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?MTID=m196086ddc16716f4da6338e481c01246
Meeting number (access code): 200 574 017
Meeting password: UdTbwvpT (83829878 from phones)

JOIN FROM A VIDEO SYSTEM OR APPLICATION
Dial sip:[email-masked]
You can also dial 173.243.2.68 and enter your meeting number.
 From the Cisco internal network, dial *267* and the 9-digit meeting 
number.  If you are the host, enter your PIN when prompted.

JOIN BY PHONE
+1-866-432-9903 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada)
+1-408-525-6800 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)

Global call-in numbers:
https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=435913767&tollFree=1

Toll-free dialing restrictions:
https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf

Can't join the meeting?
https://collaborationhelp.cisco.com/article/WBX000029055

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 09:56:27 -0400

Hi,

> ii) Do we need to define bug fix (or equivalent with an alternative name)?
At this point I expect the adoption call *after* the draft is discussed 
in Bangkok.

I'll drop in at the start of the call to ensure we're in sync on this.
Lou

> _______________________________________________
> Netmod-ver-dt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:57:42 +0100

Meeting minutes.

- We agreed not to add a definition of bug fix in the requirements 
draft, but to keep the existing text that refers to fix.
- The question of whether it is OK to classify a some bug fixes as bc, 
even though they are strictly nbc is still open (it wasn't really 
discussed much, but we agreed that it is an open issue).

- We agreed that we should publish the solution comparison draft before 
the deadline if possible:
   - Remove the Haskell based major.major based versioning scheme.
   - Add in the scheme that I proposed earlier this week, but changing 
the patch letters to "m" for minor, and "M" for major.
   - Add in the scheme where version number can split at a branch 
point.  So if a nbc bugfix is required on "1.2.3" that would be 
something like "1.2.3/2.0.0".

Thanks,
Rob

On 18/10/2018 14:44, Robert Wilton wrote:
> 5) Perhaps discuss the versioning scheme that I put forward on 
> Tuesday, or variants of it.
>
>