4 ms·

They added a significant new protocol in a minor upgrade. Is that right?

itsbits 11y ago
not defaulted as http2 though.
chrisseaton 11y ago
If all it does is add new functionality, and doesn't modify or break any existing functionality, then that seems to be good software engineering to do in a minor upgrade doesn't it?
- dtech 11y ago
  If you follow semantic versioning, the third number should only be used for bugfixes. They don't.
dtech 11y ago
Apache version numbering is similar to what the linux kernel used before 2.6. In a.b.c, odd b indicates the unstable or experimental branch, and even b's are used for major and backwards-compatibility breaking changes. Backwards-compatibility preserving changed can be introduced in c. So 2.2 and 2.4 are pretty different versions, while 2.3 and 2.4 are closer except 2.3 is unstable. 2.4.0 is theoretically compatible with 2.4.17, except the latter has a lot more functionality and features.
dspillett 11y ago
Seems valid: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, with the minimum changes being increment "patch" for backwards compatible bug fixes, "minor" for new/improved functionality that does not break backwards compatibility, and "major" for any API/feature change that is not backwards compatible. They could of course chosen to increment MAJOR instead, but they don't have to in this case. (I'm assuming they are following "standard" semver rules here)
- dtech 11y ago
  They don't use semver, and their versioning scheme precedes semver.
- skrause 11y ago
  In your example MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH they actually only increased PATCH, Apache 2.4.0 was released in early 2012.
  - dspillett 11y ago
    Ah, I was assuming the mention of "minor" in the post I replied to was referring to minor in the semver sense, without actually checking. My bad.
- ta0967 11y ago
  "backwards compatible bug fixes" don't exist: fixing a bug changes the program's behavior.
  - dspillett 11y ago
    Compatibility in this case is referring to published APIs and not changing documented behaviour. There are a large family of changes that are bug fixes that don't change correct use of an API - many security fixes for example.
marktangotango 11y ago
A better title would probably be: with OPTIONAL http2 support.
laumars 11y ago
It's an optional module rather than changing the core logic (as 2.2->2.4 did), so in that regard it makes sense to only up the minor version number.
barkingcat 11y ago
why wouldn't it be right? Not everyone uses semver, and apache project version #'s precedes semver by a long while.

not defaulted as http2 though.

If all it does is add new functionality, and doesn't modify or break any existing functionality, then that seems to be good software engineering to do in a minor upgrade doesn't it?

dtech 11y ago
If you follow semantic versioning, the third number should only be used for bugfixes. They don't.

dtech 11y ago

Apache version numbering is similar to what the linux kernel used before 2.6. In a.b.c, odd b indicates the unstable or experimental branch, and even b's are used for major and backwards-compatibility breaking changes. Backwards-compatibility preserving changed can be introduced in c. So 2.2 and 2.4 are pretty different versions, while 2.3 and 2.4 are closer except 2.3 is unstable. 2.4.0 is theoretically compatible with 2.4.17, except the latter has a lot more functionality and features.

dspillett 11y ago

Seems valid: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, with the minimum changes being increment "patch" for backwards compatible bug fixes, "minor" for new/improved functionality that does not break backwards compatibility, and "major" for any API/feature change that is not backwards compatible. They could of course chosen to increment MAJOR instead, but they don't have to in this case. (I'm assuming they are following "standard" semver rules here)

dtech 11y ago
They don't use semver, and their versioning scheme precedes semver.
skrause 11y ago
In your example MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH they actually only increased PATCH, Apache 2.4.0 was released in early 2012.
- dspillett 11y ago
  Ah, I was assuming the mention of "minor" in the post I replied to was referring to minor in the semver sense, without actually checking. My bad.
ta0967 11y ago
"backwards compatible bug fixes" don't exist: fixing a bug changes the program's behavior.
- dspillett 11y ago
  Compatibility in this case is referring to published APIs and not changing documented behaviour. There are a large family of changes that are bug fixes that don't change correct use of an API - many security fixes for example.

marktangotango 11y ago

A better title would probably be: with OPTIONAL http2 support.

laumars 11y ago

It's an optional module rather than changing the core logic (as 2.2->2.4 did), so in that regard it makes sense to only up the minor version number.

barkingcat 11y ago

why wouldn't it be right? Not everyone uses semver, and apache project version #'s precedes semver by a long while.