Semantic versionning? http://semver.org/ In that case, the 3 numbers major.minor.patch are used this way:
- the last is changed for bugfix only - the second is changed for new functionality only with 100% backward compatibility - the first is changed when backward compatibility is broken Nicolas 2013/3/3 stephane ducasse <[email protected]>: > > On Mar 3, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Torsten Bergmann" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Stef wrote: >>> Pastell is now migrated to SmalltalkHub and has a nice CI job >> >> Please note that previously ConfigurationOfPastell >> had the versions: 1.0, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.0.4 and now > > where? > >> has the versions: 1.0, 1.1., 1.2, 1.3 >> >> That broke other configurations that depend for instance on 1.0.4 > > this is strange because when I queried the repository I only got > > Name: ConfigurationOfPastell-AlexandreBergel.2 > Author: AlexandreBergel > Time: 12 September 2012, 11:43:37.215 am > UUID: ddd4217f-9fd0-234c-9669-e02e8634e984 > Ancestors: ConfigurationOfPastell-AlexandreBergel.1 > > 1.0 : First shoot! > no tbn.4 and not 5 > > Now when I look at it with the MC browser I see more. > So I redid everything for nothing. Fucking crappy system. > > > and the version was only > > baseline10: spec > <version: '1.0-baseline'> > > spec for: #'common' do: [ > spec blessing: #'baseline'. > spec repository: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/Pastell'. > spec package: 'Pastell'. > spec group: 'default' with: #('Pastell' ). ]. > > so just an illusion. no dependency at all on XMLParser. Then the packages > pastell-base was wrong since the tests could not work. > > >> and it adds a lot of confusion! > > Nice to tell me that I spent my sunday on doing bullshit. :) > Squeaksource is the confusion and if nobody moves then nothing will ever > change. > > Have a look at the repo on smalltalkhub and you will see that apparently the > two last files were not given to me > when I used my ****automatic***** migration script…. scary! > > Now if squeaksource does not serve all the files. We should really run away! > > >> Why didnt you just continue with 1.0.5 or 2.0? > > Why people started to have 1.0.2 after 1.0? > What is the reason? > Then may be we should start also to have > 1.0.0.0.1 to have enough digits. > > I hate this numbering and I see no value beside bad marketing like seaside > 3.0.2.a > > >> >> Thanks >> T. >> >> >> > >
