Well, patch is a patch ;) It's just a correction for bugs. And I think a release should not contain both bugfixes and new features. Either one or another, not both together. If you use some good version control software, that shouldn't be a problem.
I would prefer to see third version number digit changed if only bugfixes are introduced and I need to upgrade my project to use new Jooq version. I would prefer to see second version number digit changed if some new functionality was added while all public API remained unchanged or fully compatible with old one. In this case I will decide if I want to upgrade or not since introducing new features sometimes introduces some bugs also. May be I have a project, that needs to stay super-stable and I fear updates and new features like hell's fire. I would prefer to see first version digit changed if public API has changed so that I can no longer build/run my project with new jooq version and I need to adapt my code to use it. http://semver.org/ вторник, 28 февраля 2012 г. 18:24:20 UTC+4 пользователь Lukas Eder написал: > > Hello Vladislav > > > Haven't you considered using something like semantic versioning for JOOQ > > libraries? It's quite unusual to see 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 versions bursting > with > > new features while 2.0.2 only introduced some improvements... > > You mean, like Firefox quickly jumping from 3.6.2 to 10 without many > fundamental improvements? ;-) > > On a more serious note, I have considered doing that. But my roadmap > has no planning (nor branching, the interest for 1.7.x seems pretty > slim), and my release cycles are short. It's hard to say in advance, > whether the next release is a patch release or a minor one. For > instance: > > 2.0.4: Minor release or patch? I introduced a lot of new jooq-codegen > features, but jOOQ itself only had trivial improvements > 2.0.5: Runtime configuration was added and a new Maven module. But > most of jOOQ stays the same > > How to decide? I don't know. So I'm just incrementing the last two > digits (after 2.0.9 will come 2.1.0). On the other hand, maybe I > should drop the last digit and publish 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, etc? > > I'm open to more concrete suggestions. E.g. how would you have > versioned the last 10-15 versions and why? > > Cheers > Lukas > > вторник, 28 февраля 2012 г. 18:24:20 UTC+4 пользователь Lukas Eder написал: > > Hello Vladislav > > > Haven't you considered using something like semantic versioning for JOOQ > > libraries? It's quite unusual to see 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 versions bursting > with > > new features while 2.0.2 only introduced some improvements... > > You mean, like Firefox quickly jumping from 3.6.2 to 10 without many > fundamental improvements? ;-) > > On a more serious note, I have considered doing that. But my roadmap > has no planning (nor branching, the interest for 1.7.x seems pretty > slim), and my release cycles are short. It's hard to say in advance, > whether the next release is a patch release or a minor one. For > instance: > > 2.0.4: Minor release or patch? I introduced a lot of new jooq-codegen > features, but jOOQ itself only had trivial improvements > 2.0.5: Runtime configuration was added and a new Maven module. But > most of jOOQ stays the same > > How to decide? I don't know. So I'm just incrementing the last two > digits (after 2.0.9 will come 2.1.0). On the other hand, maybe I > should drop the last digit and publish 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, etc? > > I'm open to more concrete suggestions. E.g. how would you have > versioned the last 10-15 versions and why? > > Cheers > Lukas > > вторник, 28 февраля 2012 г. 18:24:20 UTC+4 пользователь Lukas Eder написал: > > Hello Vladislav > > > Haven't you considered using something like semantic versioning for JOOQ > > libraries? It's quite unusual to see 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 versions bursting > with > > new features while 2.0.2 only introduced some improvements... > > You mean, like Firefox quickly jumping from 3.6.2 to 10 without many > fundamental improvements? ;-) > > On a more serious note, I have considered doing that. But my roadmap > has no planning (nor branching, the interest for 1.7.x seems pretty > slim), and my release cycles are short. It's hard to say in advance, > whether the next release is a patch release or a minor one. For > instance: > > 2.0.4: Minor release or patch? I introduced a lot of new jooq-codegen > features, but jOOQ itself only had trivial improvements > 2.0.5: Runtime configuration was added and a new Maven module. But > most of jOOQ stays the same > > How to decide? I don't know. So I'm just incrementing the last two > digits (after 2.0.9 will come 2.1.0). On the other hand, maybe I > should drop the last digit and publish 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, etc? > > I'm open to more concrete suggestions. E.g. how would you have > versioned the last 10-15 versions and why? > > Cheers > Lukas > >
