On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 04:30:47PM +0200, Eric Schrijver wrote: > On 23-09-13 16:16, Dave Crossland wrote: > >On 23 September 2013 15:52, Eric Schrijver <e...@authoritism.net> wrote: > >>How do other Open Source font projects deal with their version numbers? Any > >>best practices? > >semver.org > > I’m aware of semver.org—that’s where I picked up the terminology > Major, Minor, Patchversion. > > At the same time, actually following semver is rather difficult > because I’m not sure its software concepts are easy mappable to > fonts: > > 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
For fonts, I consider metric-incompatible changes to be comparable to this. But some people never do metric-incompatible changes once a font is released. > 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible > manner, and > 3. PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes. Unless you are making bug-fix only releases, I think you don’t need patch releases, and even if you do, that granularity is not really that important for fonts. Regards, Khaled