Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote (31 May 2015 03:42:32 GMT) : > Sorry, I probably don't understand the current versioning scheme very
> well -- is there canonical documentation i should read about its
> semantics?
I don't think so. Basically:
* we're not very clear what the first component means (1.0 had
a well-defined meaning, no idea what 2.0 will be; we're currently
using 2.0 and 3.0 on our roadmap to make mid/long-term perspectives
and goals more readable to everyone involved, but that doesn't
mean we'll indeed release ISOs labeled 2.0 and 3.0 when we reach
them; I know that's confusing, sorry)
* we increment the second component when we put out what we call
a "major" release (new features, mostly -- and a release candidate
is needed)
* we include a 3rd component for point-releases (bugfixes only, no
release candidate)
> I would normally guess that a "major release" meant a change in the
> first value (e.g. from 1.x to 2.0). I tend to favor the simplest
> versioning scheme that provides the semantic flexibility needed by the
> project.
It's indeed tempting to simplify, drop our current usage of the first
component, and increment the first component for every major release.
In a year we would be at 5.0, which may raise concerns from folks who
don't like e.g. Firefox' version number inflation. I think that for
now, I prefer my original proposal that changes semantics in a less
drastic way.
> This is pretty much bike-shedding, though, and whatever folks are
> comfortable with is fine with me.
