Clarifications regarding dots, hyphens, increments and major version … #402
Conversation
…increment requirements.
|
For very simple one-file software, this makes it explicitly possible to have all non-trivial (0.0.0 and 1.0.0) versions ever as X.0.0 with X represented as a 4-char string representing any number between 1000 and 9999. This is for better listing presentation. 8999 possible versions should be sufficient for such simple software. |
|
Making 1.0.0 only optionally define an API makes no sense since that is precisely the purpose of this version (or any version, in a way). Without a public API, semver has no use. |
|
But this does not imply that it is optional to have a public API, quite the contrary as per number 1. It only makes it optional to number said API 1.0.0. Currently the requirement of (1) followed by the statement in (5) implies that the existence of version 1.0.0 is necessary, which I feel it shouldn't be. |
|
What do you gain from not having to number the version that defines the API as 1.0.0? If it's <1, then you are free to do whatever anyway because of (4). If it's >1, then what are you going to compare the previous versions to? |
|
I'm only arguing that instead of splitting the version line at point 1 we split it at point X, where X is explicitly defined at the liberty of the developer (with perhaps a default at 1). But yeah, I guess people who don't want version 1.0.0 but still need semver compliance could just have 0.0.z forever and just increment the patch version, but it feels like a hack trying to avoid problems when semver was supposed to solve others. It's not that important. |
|
@BenjaminLefoul, if "it's not that important", please cancel/close this PR. It is highly unlikely to be accepted. |
|
Closing & re-opening to trigger CI |
alexandrtovmach
added
RFC
…increment requirements.