On 23 September 2013 18:06, Khaled Hosny <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 04:30:47PM +0200, Eric Schrijver wrote: >> On 23-09-13 16:16, Dave Crossland wrote: >> >On 23 September 2013 15:52, Eric Schrijver <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>How do other Open Source font projects deal with their version numbers? Any >> >>best practices? >> >semver.org >> >> I’m aware of semver.org—that’s where I picked up the terminology >> Major, Minor, Patchversion. >> >> At the same time, actually following semver is rather difficult >> because I’m not sure its software concepts are easy mappable to >> fonts: >> >> 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, > > For fonts, I consider metric-incompatible changes to be comparable to > this. But some people never do metric-incompatible changes once a font > is released. > >> 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible >> manner, and >> 3. PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes. > > Unless you are making bug-fix only releases, I think you don’t need > patch releases, and even if you do, that granularity is not really that > important for fonts.
+1
