I was not aware of this difference between RRV and SemVer before;
Interesting to know! Thanks.

As stated in the README, Alf actually follows SemVer (I must
add that having to increase the major number immediately after
birthday looks very difficult in practice). Now that I know this
subtle distinction, I'll check if I can follow RRV more strictly in
the future...

Did rubgems itself has followed RRV in the last few months ??

Thanks for reporting this difference, though.

Bernard

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Phillip Gawlowski <
cmdjackryan / googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Intransition <transfire / gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > It's not true for 0.x releases --in which case the second number
> > represents major changes.
>
> You are confusing RRV and SemVer. :)
>
> Quoth the RubyGems Rational Versioning Policy:
> Nevermo^W"A category 3 change (incompatible) will increment the major
> build number and reset the minor and build numbers."
>
> It doesn't say anything about pre-1.0.0 releases. ;)
>
> Though, RRV works best for *existing* libraries adopting it, and
> SemVer works best for *fresh, newborn* libraries.
>
> --
> Phillip Gawlowski
>
> twitter.com/phgaw
> phgaw.posterous.com
>
> A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
> and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
>                -- Leibniz
>
>


-- 
PhD Student, Computer Science Department, EPL/INGI, UCLouvain, Belgium
Mail:    blambeau / gmail.com
Mobile:  +32 477 24 58 61
Blog:    http://revision-zero.org/
Code:    http://github.com/blambeau/
Follow:  http://twitter.com/blambeau/