3 ms·
If that's the case, I wish they'd adopt a year.month style version then! I guess i never thought about their versioning though.
by johnny22 5y ago
If that's the case, I wish they'd adopt a year.month style version then! I guess i never thought about their versioning though.
- pm215 5y agoIt was simpler to just move from "major.minor and we bump the major infrequently and semi-arbitrarily when the minor is big enough to feel unwieldy" to "bump major for first release of the year" rather than completely change the version number format.
- mdaniel 5y agoMerely for your consideration, I believe it'd be possible to match both goals by setting next year's version to 2023.0.0 I also didn't know about the leading number being a yearly increment and would have thought 7.0.0 was a substantial change over 6.0.0; setting the number to 2023.0.0 makes that distinction a lot more obvious