You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Dates (in the format I used) can be minor versions in semver. I'm okay with semver since I have made small API changes. I probably won't use dates in the future, but understand that they are valid semver.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You can always do 1.1.20160526.1 :P
Actually, if semver doesn't support 4 levels then I guess you could also do 1.1.20160526+1, since I think + is valid (for metadata and build stuff usually)
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Build metadata MAY be denoted by appending a plus sign and a series of dot separated identifiers immediately following the patch or pre-release version. Identifiers MUST comprise only ASCII alphanumerics and hyphen [0-9A-Za-z-]. Identifiers MUST NOT be empty. Build metadata SHOULD be ignored when determining version precedence. Thus two versions that differ only in the build metadata, have the same precedence. Examples: 1.0.0-alpha+001, 1.0.0+20130313144700, 1.0.0-beta+exp.sha.5114f85.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I used a combination of date + an appended number for multiple releases on the same date. A date is a perfectly valid minor version number as long as it's in the right format (e.g. YYYYMMDDR). I don't really care much what the format currently is. Just clearing up that dates can be valid here.
a6d1199
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Dates (in the format I used) can be minor versions in semver. I'm okay with semver since I have made small API changes. I probably won't use dates in the future, but understand that they are valid semver.
a6d1199
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To me 1.1.20160526 looks long and weird. it wouldn't work with hotfix if you would do something the same day
a6d1199
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You can always do 1.1.20160526.1 :P
Actually, if semver doesn't support 4 levels then I guess you could also do
1.1.20160526+1
, since I think + is valid (for metadata and build stuff usually)a6d1199
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
http://semver.org/#spec-item-10
a6d1199
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, thanks for the info.
a6d1199
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For what it's worth, I liked the use of dates. It made it easy to tell if I was on a very old version of the library :)
What about writing something like "1.1.1 (released 2016-05-20)" - ie. both the minor version and the date.
a6d1199
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Daniel15 then just look at the release tags
A semantic version number is better for npm and bower, and also for keeping it up to date with what can be/is a breaking change patch or a feature
a6d1199
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I used a combination of date + an appended number for multiple releases on the same date. A date is a perfectly valid minor version number as long as it's in the right format (e.g. YYYYMMDDR). I don't really care much what the format currently is. Just clearing up that dates can be valid here.