add version conformance (#163) #163
Conversation
chris-little
left a comment
chris-little
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good. (Automated numbering of section swould be good too ;-)
|
@jonblower Are you happy to merge this PR163 to address Issue #162 ? |
|
@chris-little @tomkralidis I have no objection in principle to the idea. But before we do anything, I think we'll need to sort out this repo to create a tag for the final version 1.0.0, and establish that future PRs will be targeting version 1.1 (and maintain a changelog). Also we'd need to update the schema. Would this be a compulsory property from version 1.1 onwards? Maybe it should be optional to maintain backward compatibility? I assume it would apply to all CoverageJSON documents? |
|
My vote would be compulsory moving forward only, unless there are other ways to do version detection? |
|
I am happy for Mandatory for future versions, e.g. V1.1. And absence implies V1.0. @tomkralidis @jonblower Do you think that this is not a completely backward compatible change? Isn't an unidentified JSON object or attribute or property ignored? If so, could we make this V1.0.1. I agree tagging is needed. |
chris-little
added
V1.1
chris-little
changed the title
|
@tomkralidis As the Main branch is no longer V1.0.0, which is in its own branch now, could you please alter your PR to make it version V1.0.1, then we can merge tomorrow. |
|
Should we keep it to |
|
But maybe knowing that something was patched (V1.n.x) is useful? We can discuss tomorrow. |
|
Perhaps? Not sure. If we follow the OGC API "way", examples:
...we have the |
|
FYI this PR has now been updated to use |
|
@chris-little PR comments addressed. Also updated metanorma doc metadata. |
chris-little
left a comment
chris-little
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you @tomkralidis
3 participants
Addresses #162.