On 2012-11-13 21:38, Jason van Zyl wrote: > This is a long-standing issue, but I think a document and standard has > emerged that I think is reasonable. How do people feel about trying to adhere > to: > > http://semver.org > > and moving toward using this as our standard versioning documentation?
SemVer is good. We moved from Apache commons versioning guidelines to Semver 1.0.0 @work a while back. We added one exception though, and that is one that we might want to add here as well: we don't require Z if Z == 0. So instead of 2.2.0 you are allowed to use 2.2. For Maven core we have followed SemVer strictly, but most of our other components omit Z if it is 0, which it often if. SemVer 1.0.0 is simpler than 2.0.0-rc.1 in that it does not cover pre-releases or build numbers. Our current model sort of covers pre-releases, but it doesn't cover build numbers very well. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > --------------------------------------------------------- > > To do two things at once is to do neither. > > -- Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C. > > > > > > -- Dennis Lundberg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
