Timeline for What "version naming convention" do you use?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Sep 19, 2022 at 5:06 | history | suggested | Josh Correia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Update link
|
| Sep 2, 2022 at 16:33 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 19, 2022 at 5:06 | |||||
| Jul 5, 2016 at 17:53 | comment | added | beppe9000 | @Ajedi32 For example if an user-faced software saves files, then the author could declare the file format as their "public api" and version the software accordingly (all ui changes are minor/non-breaking and format changes are major). | |
| Apr 1, 2014 at 16:18 | comment | added | Ajedi32 | SemVer is meant for versioning APIs, not user-facing software: "Software using Semantic Versioning MUST declare a public API." So technically, you can't use SemVer without a public API. However, it might make sense to adopt something similar to SemVer for versioning user-facing applications. | |
| Jul 5, 2013 at 16:54 | comment | added | user7433 | @MarkCanlas doesn't get more love because it attaches specific ideas to what constitutes a major/minor/patch release. It talks about APIs which is kinda...weird | |
| Oct 9, 2012 at 23:59 | comment | added | Ken Bloom | Looks like this works out to be the same as the RubyGems Rational Versioning policy that I mentioned below, only better formalized. | |
| Jan 19, 2012 at 19:12 | comment | added | sourcenouveau | I was a little late to the party... I added this answer 9 months after the original question. ;-) | |
| Jan 19, 2012 at 17:48 | comment | added | Mark Canlas | Surprised this isn't getting more love. | |
| Jun 14, 2011 at 13:35 | history | answered | sourcenouveau | CC BY-SA 3.0 |