Skip to content

Conversation

pantanurag555
Copy link

Motivation and Context

This PR adds the specification and SDK versioning guidelines introduced in the accepted #1309 to the specification documentation.

How Has This Been Tested?

Tested locally using the instructions in CONTRIBUTING.md.

Breaking Changes

None

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation update

Checklist

  • I have read the MCP Documentation
  • My code follows the repository's style guidelines
  • New and existing tests pass locally
  • I have added appropriate error handling
  • I have added or updated documentation as needed

Additional context

There is some confusion regarding the best place to add these guidelines. The implementation tracking matrix should live in the SDKs section under Documentation tab. However, I am open to suggestion for the versioning guidelines. Currently I have added them in the Versioning section under Documentation tab. There can also be a case made to break them up and add them to the Governance and Stewardship section under the Community tab or to actually add them within the Specification tab somewhere near the Version Negotiation guidelines. Open to feedback on this.

@@ -5,7 +5,10 @@ weight: 10
---

The Model Context Protocol uses string-based version identifiers following the format
`YYYY-MM-DD`, to indicate the last date backwards incompatible changes were made.
`YYYY-MM-DD`, to indicate the last date backwards incompatible changes were made. All
specification versions **MUST** be accompanied by detailed release notes to alert the
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMO this whole page should be removed or rewritten, as in its current form it's just a less-useful version of the specification section on version negotiation. Leaving that out of scope -- I think this addition, along with the new section below, both belong on somewhere under the Community tab, likely under the Processes section on the Governance page.

If this moves there (or even if it stays here in the docs) it should maybe even do away with RFC2119-style language, as that's more appropriate for the technical specification.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants