|
|
@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ which apply:
|
|
|
|
back when we finalized the initial versions of the spec documents, but have not cut another one
|
|
|
|
back when we finalized the initial versions of the spec documents, but have not cut another one
|
|
|
|
since.
|
|
|
|
since.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This current system is slightly confusing, but has some drawbacks for being able to compile builds of
|
|
|
|
This current system is slightly confusing, and has some drawbacks for being able to compile builds of
|
|
|
|
the spec documents (published on matrix.org) and generally try and communicate what supported versions
|
|
|
|
the spec documents (published on matrix.org) and generally try and communicate what supported versions
|
|
|
|
an implementation might have. For example, Synapse currently supports 4 different APIs, all of which
|
|
|
|
an implementation might have. For example, Synapse currently supports 4 different APIs, all of which
|
|
|
|
have their own versions, and all of which would need to be considered and compared when validating
|
|
|
|
have their own versions, and all of which would need to be considered and compared when validating
|
|
|
@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ which is a valid argument to have. This MSC believes that although the patch ver
|
|
|
|
to implementations, it is valuable as evidence of progress and finality of a given version. Going back to
|
|
|
|
to implementations, it is valuable as evidence of progress and finality of a given version. Going back to
|
|
|
|
edit already-released versions of the specification can be damaging to the integrity of the protocol,
|
|
|
|
edit already-released versions of the specification can be damaging to the integrity of the protocol,
|
|
|
|
and thus it is proposed by this MSC that the Spec Core Team remain accountable by forcing them to release
|
|
|
|
and thus it is proposed by this MSC that the Spec Core Team remain accountable by forcing them to release
|
|
|
|
a with a patch version increase for minor, functionally indifferent, changes.
|
|
|
|
with a patch version increase for minor, functionally indifferent, changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Structure changes and changelogs
|
|
|
|
### Structure changes and changelogs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -113,12 +113,12 @@ versions which had `v1` and called the `rN` system "v2". Though many of the endp
|
|
|
|
are not present in those older API editions, it is still proposed that they start at `v3` to avoid
|
|
|
|
are not present in those older API editions, it is still proposed that they start at `v3` to avoid
|
|
|
|
confusion with long-standing implementations.
|
|
|
|
confusion with long-standing implementations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Servers which are lucky enough exist during this versioning scheme change are expected to continue
|
|
|
|
Servers which are lucky enough to exist during this versioning scheme change are expected to continue
|
|
|
|
supporting the `rN` system. This is done by advertising the existing client-server API versions as
|
|
|
|
supporting the `rN` system. This is done by advertising the existing client-server API versions as
|
|
|
|
they always would have on `/versions`, though appending `"v1.1.0"` to indicate that this MSC is
|
|
|
|
they always would have on `/versions`, though appending `"v1.1.0"` to indicate that this MSC is
|
|
|
|
supported.
|
|
|
|
supported.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a further clarification to an solved problem, the `/versions` endpoint for the client-server API
|
|
|
|
As a further clarification to a solved problem, the `/versions` endpoint for the client-server API
|
|
|
|
does not need to advertise all patch version changes - just the major/minor versions it supports.
|
|
|
|
does not need to advertise all patch version changes - just the major/minor versions it supports.
|
|
|
|
If a server does advertise a patch version, clients are expected to resolve that to the relevant
|
|
|
|
If a server does advertise a patch version, clients are expected to resolve that to the relevant
|
|
|
|
major/minor version equivalent (`v1.1.8` gets treated as `v1.1.0`, for example).
|
|
|
|
major/minor version equivalent (`v1.1.8` gets treated as `v1.1.0`, for example).
|
|
|
@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ and the two most recent `MINOR` versions past that. Given a cadence of about 1 r
|
|
|
|
this should mean that the standard implementation supports roughly 1.5 years worth of Matrix history.
|
|
|
|
this should mean that the standard implementation supports roughly 1.5 years worth of Matrix history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Room versions are special in that they will essentially always be included in a Matrix release, even if
|
|
|
|
Room versions are special in that they will essentially always be included in a Matrix release, even if
|
|
|
|
unstable. The current specification says that implementatiosn don't have to implement unstable room
|
|
|
|
unstable. The current specification says that implementations don't have to implement unstable room
|
|
|
|
versions, and this is true under this MSC too.
|
|
|
|
versions, and this is true under this MSC too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For extreme clarity, the suggested schedule for supported versions would be (all examples):
|
|
|
|
For extreme clarity, the suggested schedule for supported versions would be (all examples):
|
|
|
|