Pierre, any comments?
On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 5:26 PM Lee Rhodes <[email protected]> wrote: > For a 0.X.X branch, which is experimental anyway, I'm not too concerned > about strict semantics. > > What about Go ? > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 5:19 PM tison <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It looks OK to apply to datasketches-rust. >> >> I'd add some points that, since datasketches-rust is still under 0.x, it >> would look like: >> >> main >> | - 0.3.x >> | - 0.4.x >> >> ... and based on Rust's Cargo implementation [1], 0.4 may introduce >> breaking changes compared to 0.3. >> >> [1] >> https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#change-categories >> >> So in datasketches-rust, I may prefer: >> >> 1. Keep the main branch only for now, as the release goes straightforward. >> 2. If we make the first backport release, we check out 0.N.x branch from >> latest 0.N.M. >> 3. Once any backport release happens, or after datasketches-rust releases >> 1.0, follow the strategy above. >> >> Best, >> tison. >> >> >> Lee Rhodes <[email protected]> 于2026年2月12日周四 07:38写道： >> >>> So far in our DataSketches project, we have adopted a common strategy >>> for numbering and organizing branches for releases for the languages Java, >>> C++, and Python. It looks something like the attached. >>> >>> I think that all of our languages should follow the same strategy. If >>> so I'll add it to our website. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Lee. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>
