Dear All,
Hi,
The process might depend on the status of the archetype. If the archetype is in draft, you don’t need to change the version, but if all archetypes are published, the process you propose seems correct.
Pablo Pazos
My take on this is that such archetypes need to be fairly inclusive and stable, using templates to constrain.
There is no guarantee that versions will remain compatible. As revisions are only extensions, this should work. Versioning (breaking change for existing data , needs to be limited to when there is real benefit as software will need to change.
Cheers Sam
Hi Jacky,
Yes, you are correct. Each specialisation is a separate archetype which has to obey the versioning rules.
If an archetype changes, it must check whether it remains backwardly compatible, irrespective if the change was made in the parent or child, and if the change is a breaking change, a new major version must be created, which I think is exactly what you have suggested.
Ian