On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Intransition <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then it needs to, b/c otherwise RRV is wrong.

Or not relevant to your use case. As I've *also* written:

"Though, RRV works best for *existing* libraries adopting it, and
SemVer works best for *fresh, newborn* libraries."

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

Chrome's at version 12, without any major (much less "philosophical")
changes between versions.

What it comes down to is that version numbers are just numbers,
without any inherent meaning of their own. Otherwise, where's all the
versions between Access 2.0 and Access 7.0? What happened to .NET 3.2?

> 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".

Here's a thought: don't bump the version number pre-1.0 if you don't
have to. Policy, no matter which one, doesn't replace good sense. Or
adopt SemVer for your new 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