Phillip Gawlowski wrote in post #1010560:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Bernard Lambeau wrote:
>>
>> 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).

Why?  What's the stigma against increasing major version numbers?

For example, I've been following RRV in my open-source projects
since I first read the RubyGems user manual back in 2006.  Some of
them have very "high" version numbers already, and I do not hesitate
to release major versions right after bug fixes because the changes
contained in a release should dictate the version number:

  ruby-vpi 21.1.0
  test-loop 12.2.0
  erbook 9.2.1
  inochi 6.1.0
  rumai 4.1.2
  gerbil 3.1.0
  detest 3.1.3
  dfect 2.2.0
  test-unit-must 1.0.0
  ember 0.3.1
  kernel_hash 0.0.0
  babelfish 0.0.1

> Further, it all depends on how you define "birthday". Ideally, the
> first public release (the "birthday to the rest of the world") is
> 1.0.0, making this whole issue moot.
>
> Otherwise, I'd jsut tag the first public released of an unfinished
> gem as 0.1.0, and go from there.

What is an "unfinished" gem?  What, aside from a 1.0.0 version
number, really makes a gem "finished"?

> In the end, RRV and SemVer are similar enough that your releases
> follow RRV and SemVer at once, once you hit the Big One.

I don't understand why a "1.0" (or "Big One" as you say) release is
given such overwhelming importance in open-source software.

If this was commercial software (published in big, singular
releases, optionally followed by "patches" to the company's
embarrassment) then I would agree that the "1.0" convention makes
sense.  But this is open-source software, which continually changes,
improves, and evolves: a "1.0" release is like any other release!

I really hope that we (open-source developers) put aside the need to
productize our open-source software like commercial software is,
overcome the stigma of "high" version numbers, and learn to accept
that change is the life-blood of open-source software: it is never
really "finished", is it?  And without regular maintenance, it will
age, rot, and fall into obscurity. :-(

>> Did rubgems itself has followed RRV in the last few months ??
>
> I'm sure Evan Phoenix as release manager will be a stickler for
> these rules. :)

He had better!  Otherwise it defeats the whole purpose of RRV.  :-(

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.