Hey Mike, I like the idea of semantic versioning and that we can point at a mature versioning scheme without having to invent our own.
>From the link you provided, pre 1.0.0 versions are not considered stable or production ready, meaning the Public API of OCW should not be considered stable. Item #4 from semver.org: > "Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything may > change at any time. The public API should not be considered stable." I think that this is a wonderful practice to adopt for the project. If this needs to be voted on, please count this as my +1. Thanks, Cameron On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Michael Joyce <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Now that we're out of incubator I would like to propose a change to our > current versioning scheme. So far our versioning has been fairly arbitrary. > Our current version is 0.4-incubating simply because our previous version > was 0.3-incubating. I would like to see us move to more standard versioning > scheme just as [1]. > > TLDR: > > Versions are Major.Minor.Patch > Major: Backwards incompatible API changes increment this > Minor: Backwards compatible changes increment this > Patch: Backwards compatible bug/hot fixes increment this > > This makes it much easier to logic about whether upgrading is viable and > what exactly is going to break in an existing code base if you update OCW > to the latest version. > > Note, I know I mention that our current version in 0.4-incubating. I'm > going to be updating that in a second so that it is just 0.4 since we're no > longer incubating! > > [1] http://semver.org/ > > -- Joyce >
