On Jul 13, 4:52  򮮮
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Intransition <transf... / 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. ;)

Then it needs to, b/c otherwise RRV is wrong.

When you get to version v11.0 you realize just how wrong ;-)

0.x versions are often undergoing massive changes. It is not rational
to bump the major number every time the "initial development series"
changes. So, for 0.x, minor number is really the major number. I guess
one can think of it as a "semantic shift".

Personally I have developed a different tact from experience. I use
the minor number for API changes and the major number for overarching
philosophical design changes. (But still 0.x is shifted).