Subject: [Netmod-ver-dt] Packages review - parent vs previous

From: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 20:13:17 +0000

A minor thing I noticed is the use of 'previous'.

My preference is 'parent-version' rather than 'previous-version'. Was that already debated for the module versioning drafts?

Jason

From: Netmod-ver-dt <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2019 9:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Netmod-ver-dt] YANG packages draft - now ready for review please

Hi,

I think that this document has had sufficient updates that it is ready for review.

The latest version is available at per the commit information above, or attached.

I appreciate that it is quite short notice, but if it is possible for folks to review and provide comments before Thursday's meeting that probably be helpful.

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:50:43 +0000

Hi Jason,

I can't remember if this has been debated.  I think that parent version immediately makes me think of a tree of versions, but version lineage might also be fairly linear in many cases.

So, I'm happy to discuss this, but have a preference for 'previous-version', since it effectively just makes it a pointer (without regard to the structure).

Thanks,
Rob

From: Netmod-ver-dt <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Sent: 17 October 2019 21:13
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Netmod-ver-dt] Packages review - parent vs previous

Jason

From: Netmod-ver-dt <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2019 9:58 AM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: [Netmod-ver-dt] YANG packages draft - now ready for review please

Hi,

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:24:19 +0000

Hi Rob,

I'm not too concerned with 'parent' vs 'previous' but intuitively I think of 'parent' as closer to the concept I have in my mind. 'previous' can start to imply some chronological aspects and also implies linear progressions. We definitely want to allow a parent to have at least 2 direct children (for branching).  I don't think we're precluding >2 either right?

But if you and others are more keen on 'previous' then I'm OK with it.

Jason

From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 12:51 PM
To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Packages review - parent vs previous

Hi Jason,

Thanks,
Rob

From: Netmod-ver-dt <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> On Behalf Of Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Sent: 17 October 2019 21:13
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: [Netmod-ver-dt] Packages review - parent vs previous

Jason

Hi,

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 15:36:32 +0000

Hi Jason,

I think that "previous" implying chronological aspects are probably a good thing.  I.e. I think that it is reasonable to expect that version n n+1 is always created after version n.

We are definitely not precluding a version have more than 1 subsequent versions.  If they are using YANG semver  for the version numbers then the branching is naturally limited by what can be expressed in YANG semver, otherwise there is no limit to how much branching is allowed (as long as they all have unique version strings).

Thanks,
Rob

From: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[email-masked]>
Sent: 21 October 2019 18:24
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Packages review - parent vs previous

Hi Rob,

Jason

From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 12:51 PM
To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Packages review - parent vs previous

Hi Jason,

Thanks,
Rob

Jason

Hi,

Thanks,
Rob