Hi Volkan, I am not sure what you are proposing.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023, at 10:26, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > I propose embracing a common versioning scheme across all Logging Services > projects; log4j, log4cxx, etc. As you already mentioned, except for some parts of Log4j 1, we are following server already, and it looks like everybody knows about it. > match the `[0-9]+(-(alpha|beta)[1-9]+)?` That is, only the following will > be valid: `1.2.3`, `1.2.3-alpha4`, `1.2.3-beta4`, etc. We have only 3.0.0 with the alpha label. You are not against it, I guess? > - *MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes* > - *MINOR version when you add functionality in a backward compatible > manner* > - *PATCH version when you make backward compatible bug fixes* > > We mostly have a problem whether the next release needs a minor or patch > version bump. I propose to refine the official semantics as follows: > > Are we making a release to *only* address a set of particular issues? That > is, does the following hold? > > [next release] = [last release] + [fix1] + [fix2] + ... + [fixN] > > If so, this needs a patch version bump. Otherwise, this is a minor version > bump. I assume with "issue" and "fix" you mean "bug fix". I don't understand what is the difference to what semver says. When you add functionality, it's a minor. If you just add fixes, it's a patch. Did I miss something that we are doing differently?
