You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The existence of a version field as a model point would allow more flexibility for making corrections and other changes to the model specification.
If I understand the philosophy correctly, adding a point at the end of the common model would not break existing implementations. Another option could be to add a model that contains specification metadata, starting with version. Format could be a simple incrementing integer, major.minor, major.minor.patch, etc.
Another option is a per-model version point, but that level of granularity is probably unnecessary.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The existence of a version field as a model point would allow more flexibility for making corrections and other changes to the model specification.
If I understand the philosophy correctly, adding a point at the end of the common model would not break existing implementations. Another option could be to add a model that contains specification metadata, starting with version. Format could be a simple incrementing integer, major.minor, major.minor.patch, etc.
Another option is a per-model version point, but that level of granularity is probably unnecessary.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: