Which version scheme to adopt for GDAL-GRASS driver?

[neteler]

Since this driver has been extracted from GDAL (initial request, response1, response2, response3) we need to decide which version scheme to adopt.

Options:

• follow GDAL versioning (probably doesn't make quite sense)
• start over with 1.0.0
• other ideas?

[metzm]

+1 to start over with 1.0.0

Following GDAL versioning does not make sense because the plugin is not tied to a particular GDAL version.

[nilason]

Just now I realised restarting versioning from 1.0.0 may be problematic from packaging point of view. This package has been following gdal version (https://repology.org/project/gdal-grass/versions), and in most package systems the version must increase.

[sebastic]

GDAL 3.5.0-rc1 is out, gdal-grass will need to be rebuilt with it for the libgdal SONAME bump.

What's the version going to be? Leave it 1.0.0 and let packages use an epoch, or bump it to 3.5.0 (or higher)?

[nilason]

I overlooked the possibility of setting epoch. That is perhaps the cleanest solution. I'm perfectly good to stay with 1.0.0.

[sebastic]

Has this discussion concluded with staying at 1.0.0 and packages using an epoch?

Once I upload a package with an epoch I cannot go back.

[neteler]

I am also good to stay with 1.0.0 and using an epoch.
@metzm what do you think?

[metzm]

As I mentioned, I am favouring to start with 1.0.0. Using an epoch is fine with me.

[neteler]

Thanks for having packaged this driver for Debian (https://packages.debian.org/experimental/source/libgdal-grass), @sebastic !

[neteler]

I have now started https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal-grass/milestones and re-assigned all (closed) PRs to it.
More to come.

[neteler]

I gave the plan for future gdal-grass releases a start at https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal-grass/wiki

[sebastic]

The second bullet point in the Tracking upstream changes section needs to replace GDAL with GRASS.

[sebastic]

I have now started https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal-grass/milestones and re-assigned all (closed) PRs to it. More to come.

My changes were upstreamed after the 1.0.0 release, #5 & #6 need to be reassigned to the 1.0.1 milestone.

[neteler]

You are right, thanks & fixed.