Hello Vladislav > Haven't you considered using something like semantic versioning for JOOQ > libraries? It's quite unusual to see 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 versions bursting with > new features while 2.0.2 only introduced some improvements...
You mean, like Firefox quickly jumping from 3.6.2 to 10 without many fundamental improvements? ;-) On a more serious note, I have considered doing that. But my roadmap has no planning (nor branching, the interest for 1.7.x seems pretty slim), and my release cycles are short. It's hard to say in advance, whether the next release is a patch release or a minor one. For instance: 2.0.4: Minor release or patch? I introduced a lot of new jooq-codegen features, but jOOQ itself only had trivial improvements 2.0.5: Runtime configuration was added and a new Maven module. But most of jOOQ stays the same How to decide? I don't know. So I'm just incrementing the last two digits (after 2.0.9 will come 2.1.0). On the other hand, maybe I should drop the last digit and publish 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, etc? I'm open to more concrete suggestions. E.g. how would you have versioned the last 10-15 versions and why? Cheers Lukas
