Rooba
/
flatbuffers
mirror of https://github.com/google/flatbuffers.git
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Page: Versioning
Pages
FlatBuffers maintainers & governance FlatBuffers release process Home Versioning Why FlatBuffers vs other options?
4 Versioning
Derek Bailey edited this page 2023-01-05 13:56:08 -08:00
Table of Contents

FlatBuffers Versioning

This specifies how we version things in FlatBuffers, as there are some unique challenges present.

The overall philosophy of the project is to "live at head" and not worry about version numbers. Due to our Continuous Integration process, any of our commits are valid versions to work off and have been tested as a whole together.

But we also realize that others rely on package managers for their languages for integration into their projects. So we too occasionally cut releases and upload a snapshot to various package managers.

Releases

Releases occur when the maintainers decide a formal release is warrented. Either some new feature is available or a critical bug is fixed. There is no real road map or schedule that is followed.

Versioning Scheme

FlatBuffers has a version in the format: YY.MM.DD

Where YY is the current year minus 2000 (e.g., 2023 is 23).

The MM is the month from Jan (1) to Dec (12).

And DD is the day of the month, from 1 to 31.

An example version would be:

22.9.14

In case of two or more releases on a given day, the format may be appended with a further .{release #} (e.g. 22.9.14.2 would be the second release). This isn't intended to occur often.

This format has the following nice properties:

  1. Its has lexicographic ordering, so easy to tell what is newer.
  2. It's a date, so it is easy to know when in time it was released.
  3. Compatible with package managers that expect Semantic Versioning
  4. Simple to generate

Not Semantic Versioning

This is very similar format to Semantic Versioning, but we don't prescribe to hold to semantic versioning. Why Not?

Since FlatBuffers involves multiple pieces working in tandem:

  1. The flatc compiler that parses schema and write codes gen
  2. The individual language "run time" libraries
  3. The schema version

Its hard to assign one version to unite all those things together and follow Semantic Versioning exactly.

Single Version

As an example, consider using a single version at 1.2.3. Suppose Jane spotted a bug in the Java runtime library which needs to be fixed and it is breaking change. She could fix the bug and bump up the "major" version to 2.0.0 and release. This would cause all the other languages to be updated to 2.0.0. Peter the python developer notices that the major version of FlatBuffers changed, and may A) hesitate to update because he thinks there are breaking changes, or B) updates but doesn't see anything different with the python libraries and wonder why he spent time updating. Either choice causes unneeded friction, since there is zero change for python code in this release update.

Multiple Versions

The alternative is to assign each language their own version and have them evolve independently. That avoids the churn for unrelated version bumps, but because we have tight coupling with flatc a compatibility matrix of versions is now required.

Taking the previous example, say that flatbuffers-java-2.0.0 is released, what version should flatc be at? If the change was just in the java runtime libraries, no change to flatc is warranted, and it might stay at flatbuffers-flatc-1.2.3 still. This will now cause confusion on which runtime libraries are supported by which flatc. The complexity expands with each additional language.

This is a headache to maintain, and will lead to greater confusion just to fit the mold of semantic versioning.