[Standards] (MIX) - When to increment Namespace
steve.kille at isode.com
Wed Jun 14 07:12:06 UTC 2017
> > I have not pushed as a PR because of namespace numbering. It seems
> > likely that if a change is pushed every time we make a protocol tweak,
> > there is going to be a serious problem of namespace number proliferation.
> > I think the options are:
> > 1. Keep changes on a working branch and defer pushing. This gives less
> > visibility of work in progress.
> > 2. Push and increment namespace. Problem noted above.
> > 3. Push the PR and leave version number on mix:0. I think this may be
> > the pragmatic solution, provided it does not cause a problem for
> > those coding.
> This is a general question. In software library development, one would have
> a major update (here: things which require a namespace bump) branch and a
> minor update (here: things which do not require a namespace bump) branch,
> with the minor changes continuously flowing in the currently supported
> However, the XEP process does not make it easy to have these two branches
> exist in parallel in a manner which allows easy viewing and discussing.
I think the software analogy is a good one. It feels sensible to increment namespace at "key delivery points" rather than for each minor protocol twiddle.
An implementation supporting mix:2 might have some fallback if it gets mix:1 PDUs. I find it harder to see something supporting mix:42 having fallback for a mix:37 PDU.
MIX 0.9.3 has made a protocol change relative to MIX 0.9.2. The practical question is - when do we change from mix:0 to mix:1?
> In this particular case, I’d suggest seeking consensus`from those who work
> on implementations. Or maybe someone deeper in the XSF has knowledge
> about any requirements in the process regarding this, I haven’t looked it up.
Some expert guidance would be appreciated
> kind regards & thanks,
Thanks for the quick and helpful response
More information about the Standards