Extensions, tags and schemas contain versions as described in the specification: https://www.asdf-format.org/projects/asdf-standard/en/1.5.0/versioning.html However the precise format is not defined. The general convention is <prefix>-<semantic version>. Making this explicit would have a few practical benefits:
- matches centralized parsing utilities in asdf API:
|
def split_tag_version(tag): |
- allow for possible future version constraints (not based on string wildcards)
It seem unlikely that downstream extensions aren't semantically versioned (except for perhaps roman_datamodels-1.0). However a deprecation period and options for handling non-conforming extensions is called for (and if usage is found we should evaluate pros and cons of this change).
Extensions, tags and schemas contain versions as described in the specification: https://www.asdf-format.org/projects/asdf-standard/en/1.5.0/versioning.html However the precise format is not defined. The general convention is
<prefix>-<semantic version>. Making this explicit would have a few practical benefits:asdf/asdf/versioning.py
Line 25 in 5fc55f7
It seem unlikely that downstream extensions aren't semantically versioned (except for perhaps roman_datamodels-1.0). However a deprecation period and options for handling non-conforming extensions is called for (and if usage is found we should evaluate pros and cons of this change).