hrabri.rajic at intel.com
Mon Nov 26 15:04:56 CST 2007
It is best to agree on the list, before using any of the possible
The library could have 1.0.1 version number in its name. Also, the last
digit would not be possible to retrieve programmatically via DRMAA API
if used internally.
I would use a tag or document description for a spec and document
relevant changes inside.
>From: drmaa-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:drmaa-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
>Of Daniel Templeton
>Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:58 PM
>To: DRMAA Working Group
>Subject: [DRMAA-WG] Versioning
>Given the defined versioning scheme (major.minor), how should I
>represent that the latest change to the DRMAA Java language binding
>has revved it past its previous 1.0 status, but that it is still 1.0
>compliant. What I want to say is that it's 1.0.1, but that's not
>possible. The closest I can come is 1.1, which sounds like it's no
>longer based on the 1.0 DRMAA spec. Thoughts?
> drmaa-wg mailing list
> drmaa-wg at ogf.org
More information about the drmaa-wg