Subject: Re: [Netmod-ver-dt] [netmod] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 21:07:52 -0500

On 11/8/18 16:46, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> After the session today, it seems to me that one fundamental
> requirement (or non-requirement) is missing.  How much branching does
> the solution have to support?  The current solution (6020/7950) and (if
> I understood Rob Shakir correctly) also openconfig have linear
> versioning *per module*.  If we can get agreement on this requirement,
> I think it will be easier to find a solution.

We discussed this in the DT.  We didn't want to discuss levels of
branching in the requirements as that pointed to certain solutions.  The
point of requirement 1.4 was to say that the DT felt previous versions
of modules needed to support fixes without bringing in elements from head.

We discussed branching to satisfy this requirement as well as protecting
new features with if-feature and using deviations.

Joe

---

From: Ebben Aries <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 09:49:44 +0700

On Nov 09 14:42 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > The
> I think this means that you require branching.
> 
> But is this still the point of the "new 1.4" that was mentioned in the
> session?
> 
> However, as Rob Shakir mentioned in the session, there are other ways
> to do fixes / enhacements than branching a single module.  You can add
> new functionality with augment and make changes with deviations.
> 

So we could potentially result in a cleaner set of base model versioning
but augments and deviations that will need somewhat of it's own
branch versioning now.  I often find that consumers/clients make quite a
few assumptions and expectations when one supports model version X (w/o
the realization that it is X+/- for various reasons)

We'll have a namespace problem which will result in namespaces being
inserted (and removed at later dates) which ultimately has an impact on
clients

Possibly a better middle ground but think there are still considerations
here as well as to the overall impact of this approach

/ebben

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 22:46:33 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

/martin

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 14:42:03 +0100 (CET)

Joe Clarke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> branching in the requirements as that pointed to certain solutions.

All requirements point to certain solutions, in a sense.

But if you say that branching is not a requirement on a solution, I'm
happy with that.

/martin