On a side note, this semantic version document is beautiful. I am going to suggest we adopt it as a standard for erlware projects.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Eric Merritt <[email protected]> wrote: > Samual, > > Thanks this is actually helpful. Just to be clear I wasn't suggesting > adding semantics about stability to version numbers. I think those > semantics already exist. People have an expectation that a 1.0 project > has some level of stability. However, I am leaning towards ignoring > that and going with just a consistant versioning model that you > suggest here. > > Eric > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Samuel <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >> >> > -- 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.
