Re: [Tei-council] semantic version conversation

Not having heard a clear resolution, and with refrigeration and lal, I suppose PR 1996 moves to the next milestone? https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/pull/1996 Raff On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:50 PM Raffaele Viglianti < raffaeleviglianti@gmail.com> wrote:

I recall that most of the discussion revolved around whether using semver for the TEI Guidelines seemed appropriate, and we noticed that the SemVer specs themselves follow it. If they can do it so can we, we agreed.

If adopting a subset of the SemVer spec is different from saying that "a TEI version number follows the Semantic Versioning Specification", then I agree that we should say inspired, or that implements it partially.

Raff

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:40 PM Bauman, Syd wrote:

...

That (y’all agreed we cannot wholesale adopt SemVer) would be good to hear — but it would mean there is an error in the notes document, which says the opposite: “VF2F subgroup thinks that it is appropriate to say that a TEI version number follows the Semantic Versioning Specification.” Possibly the word “not” is just missing?

------------------------------ I'm pretty sure we said precisely what you just said, that we can't wholesale adopt SemVer, but we can use something similar to and inspired by it.

_______________________________________________ Tei-council mailing list Tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council