On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 13:26:42 -0500, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 11:30 Ben Boeckel <ben.boeckel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > That may also work. Do we want a top-level versioning for the whole
> > thing still? Having an object be top-level is, IMO, better anyways as we
> > can extend it while an array ends up with an oddball parent-influencing
> > member.
> >
>
> Maybe have the versions as keys in that object?
>
> That would have the advantage of making it clear they are alternatives for
> the same data...

Sure, we just migrate to `MAJOR.MINOR` which seems reasonable to me… One
place you wish for YAML's `[1, 0]`-as key and then realize that the
unnecessary complexity that follows isn't worth it.

--Ben