4 ms·
Yes, precisely. You could have big flashy releases with "2" branding that as far as automatic updates are concerned are non-breaking and non-conceptual (new log
by tolmasky 8y ago
Yes, precisely. You could have big flashy releases with "2" branding that as far as automatic updates are concerned are non-breaking and non-conceptual (new logo! we got acquired! better docs! whatever). You can also have important bug fixes that will break existing clients and thus should not auto-update, but under the "idea" of 1.0.
- slowmovintarget 8y agoThat sounds awful. It makes it even harder to make decisions about whether to accept a new version because it is tangling different concerns into a single knot and saying "here, we might mean all of these things, you figure it out!" Just change the name.
- tolmasky 8y agoThe name doesn't show up anywhere Also, there is too much focus on the least important of the two scenarios: wanting to increase the version number with no meaningful changes. The actually important scenario is the opposite: when the major version SHOULD be upgraded but people don't want to give the impression that this is a "major release" (in the colloquial sense). This is why the name is irrelevant: this is a situation where you'd want to "keep the name the same", and we already see that not working. Perhaps you'd be happy with making the vanity portion I suggested a "name"? mojave.1.0.3? This is 100% equivalent to what I was already proposing (the vanity section is pure vanity and is meaningless in package resolution), but seems to also satisfy your concern that it would be confusing if it were a number. Does that satisfy your concerns? My concern is simple: unless he "name" shows up in config files, it will not have the power of the "major" version and will thus inevitably result in people not properly upgrading the major version when necessary.