3 ms·
You bring up a good point about marketing. Maybe version "names" could be helpful here. Make a marketing "name" and use that as a way of showing off what's ne
by Klathmon 10y ago
You bring up a good point about marketing.
Maybe version "names" could be helpful here.
Make a marketing "name" and use that as a way of showing off what's new, while still keeping semver true to it's name.
In your example, version 1.3 could be "Saucy Gorilla", while 1.8 could be "Delicate Apricot", and when you feel it's change enough from the start, you can pick an arbitrary point and make a new name and blog post.
It would still have some of the bikeshedding that older "major.minor" version schemes have, but it could be not as bad because it is more obviously arbitrary.
- WorldMaker 10y agoI tried to make this very argument with a former employer. Who cares about numbers except for weird technical people? Just pick a cool marketing name and market the heck out of that that. "But we've always marketed 2.0 or 3.0..." So what? I suppose there's a small psychological benefit in a monotonically increasing number, but it doesn't really tell you anything more than "Saucy Gorilla" in terms of what is in a release. It can help you order the releases if you need to know which release came first, but you can alphabetize your codenames or even just have a lookup table for those rare times that actually matters.
- isaacaggrey 10y agoUbuntu is an example of doing both an increasing number (by year.month) and marketing name. Recently: 16.10 (Yakkety Yak), 16.04 (Xenial Xerus), etc. However, it seems Canonical keeps the codename out of their official press release: https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/10/13/canonical-releases-ubuntu-16-10/ https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/10/13/canonical-releases-ub...