Option 3  +1.

/Ken

From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 3:45 AM
To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev@arm.com>
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>; tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning

Hi Anton,

Option 3 seems the most sensible to me for a project like TF-M at this stage.

Best regards,

Kevin

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 20:19, Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:

Hi,

I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning started on the last tech forum.

Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and minor versions, following TF-A.

There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning.

Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 :

1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and
3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes.

This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the forum and several options were proposed:

1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only.
2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between.
3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream project relay on a fixed version.
4. Other ideas?

Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input.

Thanks,

Anton.

--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m