3 ms·
> Then just use 0.y.z versions and be done with it? Yeah, that would work, except a lot of people read 0.x.y versions as "alpha quality". Regardless of the ac
by bborud 5y ago
> Then just use 0.y.z versions and be done with it?
Yeah, that would work, except a lot of people read 0.x.y versions as "alpha quality". Regardless of the actual code quality.
- gowld 5y agoIf you expect a certain version to be valuable long term, promote it to Z.0 version. It's OK to to have AwesomeButRapidlyChangingLibrary-2022.03.0 branched from 0.y.z.
- bborud 5y agoOr, as some people recommend, skip directly to V2 as the first version.
- philosopher1234 5y agoThis is true and unfortunate, but I think the engineering value of meaningful versions is important and I expect that with enough time people will adapt to understanding a different meaning of 0.x. And besides, people are right to understand 0.x is risky b.c you are not guaranteeing backwards compatibility.
- pgwhalen 5y agoIs this a problem inside a small company though? I would expect there to be much better signals about how alpha-ish a library is in that setting (i.e. talking to your coworkers).
- bborud 5y agoFunny you should ask. Yes, it can be when you use third party software and people have version number hangups.
- pgwhalen 5y agoVersion number hangups are indeed a problem, I don’t mean to suggest my organization has escaped them. But if you can wade through those successfully, the technical solution itself often does make sense.
- digisign 5y agoIf it is changing all the time, then it is "alpha quality."
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]