On 17/01/14 15:09, Yaron Koren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Markus - are you suggesting retroactively referring to, say, version
> 1.5.1 as version 5.1 - with a corresponding change to all the
> documentation, etc.? Or just jumping straight from version 1.9 to
> version 10.0? I'm assuming the latter, but in ei
Hi,
Markus - are you suggesting retroactively referring to, say, version 1.5.1
as version 5.1 - with a corresponding change to all the documentation,
etc.? Or just jumping straight from version 1.9 to version 10.0? I'm
assuming the latter, but in either case that seems like a bad idea, that
will i
Hey,
> Markus:
> the next version should be 10.0.0
Good point. +1 to this.
> Alexander:
> It is also important to tag all extensions. This is very often not the
case yet...
At least for SMW you can be sure all future releases will be tagged, since
Composer essentially requires one to tag in ord
+1 for using the semver.org definitions. This is especially important in
managed (enterprise) IT environments (ITIL...) where major changes
triggers different processes. It is also important to tag all
extensions. This is very often not the case yet...
/Alexander
Am 17.01.2014 10:41, schrieb M
Hi,
+1 to dropping the initial "1." that will never ever change.
However, since the 1 was unchanged since we are out of beta, it seems to
me that we are currently treating the second number as our major
version. In other words, we are at version 9.0.1 and the next version
should be 10.0.0. Thi
