[openssl-project] A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version scheme (v2)

[Richard Levitte]

In message <CAHEJ-S7Uww84Np+JhWYgTZ26Eo7oszK+y=w2o_njr8bFOorsmw at mail.gmail.com> on Fri, 21 Sep 2018 23:01:03 +1000, Tim Hudson <tjh at cryptsoft.com> said:

> Semantic versioning is about a consistent concept of version handling.
> 
> And that concept of consistency should be in a forms of the version
> - be it text string or numberic.
> 
> That you see them as two somewhat independent concepts isn't
> something I support or thing makes sense at all.

In that case, we should probably just thrown away
OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER and come up with a different name.  If we keep
that macro around, it needs to be consistent with its semantics as
we've done it since that FAQ update.  Otherwise, I fear we're making
life much harder on those who want to use it for pre-processing, and
those who want to check the encoded version number.

I do get what you're after...  a clean 1:1 mapping between the version
number in text form and in numeric encoding.  I get that.  The trouble
is the incompatibilities that introduces, and I'm trying to take the
middle ground.

> Our users code checks version information using the integer representation and it should be in
> semantic form as such - i.e. the pure numeric parts of the semantic version.
> 
> This is the major point I've been trying to get across. Semantic versioning isn't about just one
> identifier in text format - it is about how you handle versioning in general. And consistency is its
> purpose.

Sure.

Would you mind writing up a quick proposal on a new encoding of the
version?  (and just so you don't limit yourself too much, it's fine by
me if that includes abandoning the macro OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER and
inventing a new one, a better one, with a definition that we can keep
more consistent than our current mess)

Cheers,
Richard

-- 
Richard Levitte         levitte at openssl.org
OpenSSL Project         http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/