The problem introduced however is that you cannot delineate between versions between significant changes in design.. say you have to patch all released versions with security fix (say you have a 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3)... by using only a datestamp you don't know which architectural fork the code base belongs from version number alone.
I might suggest following a pattern that Node, Python, and several others follow where you use: major.minor.rev where OpenPGP.js v0.1.20120730 This way you can have several versioned 'forks' and can easily distinguish, ie: v0.2.20120730 from v0.1.20120730 - Jim Jim Klo Senior Software Engineer Center for Software Engineering SRI International t. @nsomnac On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Sean Colyer wrote: I've made a pull request to change the way we do versioning for our builds. Basically replacing the hardcoded "OpenPGP.js v0.1" with a date like "OpenPGP.js 20120730". I'm interested to see if others think this is a good idea, the project has changed hugely since the original "0.1" and I think it makes a lot more sense for us to have the version reflect which version of code is actually running. However, please let me know if this doesn't seem like a good approach? https://github.com/openpgpjs/openpgpjs/pull/49 Sean _______________________________________________ http://openpgpjs.org
_______________________________________________ http://openpgpjs.org
