Is there any documentation or comments on the semantics of sinan and faxien versioning?
We've been using different versioning policies at work and it seems we found one that's been quite stable for a couple of years. Funny enough, Tom Preston-Werner has written something that almost serve as documentation for what we do, so it seems more people had similar ideas out there: http://semver.org/ Basically, versions are X.Y.Z where Z is the patch level (changes that don't change the public API), Y is for backwards compatible changes and X for incompatible changes. They suggest using version 0.x.x as special line for development versions that need not keep any compatibility (we don't do that). We use versioning as an aid between development and operations, since ops guys want to control when an upgrade maybe dangerous. Stability is more a testing thing, so all our attempts to reflect that in the version number failed since it's quite dynamic. For example, we once tried to use a suffix being, to speak, a for betas, b for system-tested, c for pre-production tested, etc. It ended up in betas installed everywhere because no one found any value on rebranding already versioned releases once they promoted after a testing stage. What you'r suggesting is adding some kind of semantics about stability in the version number, I guess. Maybe you could use the first number for that and the other three for plain semantic versioning. Cheers -- Samuel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "erlware-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
