4 ms·
I wish semver adopted "era" as an optional fourth (left-most) number so you could relay that valid sense of a collection of major versions. Without this you ju
by eatonphil 6y ago
I wish semver adopted "era" as an optional fourth (left-most) number so you could relay that valid sense of a collection of major versions.
Without this you just leave the umbrella of versions to create a new package for your next era. This is fine except for corporate or big name projects that want the advantage of their package name for many years.
- hombre_fatal 6y agoYeah, I'm a fan of some sort of "{branding}v{major}.{minor}". That way there's a "branding" version (or "era" as you call it) that signals larger level but arbitrary changes, and you still can communicate lower level semver stuff.
- jovdg 6y agoCall it "epoch", like (ao.): - https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/deb-version.7.html https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/deb-version.7.html - https://rpm-packaging-guide.github.io/#epoch https://rpm-packaging-guide.github.io/#epoch
- teddyh 6y agoMore canonical version of that first link: https://manpages.debian.org/buster/dpkg-dev/deb-version.7.en.html https://manpages.debian.org/buster/dpkg-dev/deb-version.7.en... Or possibly this one: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#version https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.ht...
- z3t4 6y agoYou can still name your releases if you use Semver. You can for example call it 1.2.3 John, 2.0.1 John, Then if the next release is really big you can name it 2.1.0 Phil. Then when talking to customers you can ask them if they have a John Or Phil version.