4 ms·

Pride Versioning 0.3.0

53 points by laacz 1y ago

mbirth 1y ago
I very much prefer Gregorian versioning. Also lets you instantly know whether that nice app you’ve just found mentioned somewhere is still being updated or abandoned for 5 years already.
- eichin 1y ago
  Do you mean calendar-year-major version numbers? (ubuntu aspell-en is "2020.12.07-0-1") I like the name, but google only found this comment mentioning it :-)
  - mbb70 1y ago
    Normally just called calendar versioning
  - chrismorgan 1y ago
    A more common name for it is calendar versioning. One spec for such a thing is CalVer, but I flatly refuse to ever label anything as that, because they got their terminology horribly wrong, making MM be 1–12 and 0M 01–12 (and so on for each of Y, W and D too). YYYY.MM should obviously mean 2025.08, and 2025.8 should be YYYY.M.
neilellis 1y ago
Love it!
carterschonwald 1y ago
This is kinda what we’ve all been doing all along!
reb 1y ago
Finally, a versioning scheme that's rooted in reality
- Spivak 1y ago
  They forgot the real first digit, the marketing version.
blahgeek 1y ago
This makes more sense than it looks. semver is a lie because every change is a breaking change (Hyrum’s law)
cloudbonsai 1y ago
This is cute, but I find OpenSSL's version policy way funnier. Here I quote it verbatim from https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Versioning https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Versioning: *Major releases* that change one/both of the first two digits, which can break compatibility with previous versions *Minor releases* that change the last digit, e.g. 1.1.0 vs. 1.1.1, can and are likely to contain new features, but in a way that does not break binary compatibility. This means that an application compiled and dynamically linked with 1.1.0 does not need to be recompiled when the shared library is updated to 1.1.1. It should be noted that some features are transparent to the application such as the maximum negotiated TLS version and cipher suites, performance improvements and so on. There is no need to recompile applications to benefit from these features. *Letter releases,* such as 1.0.2a, exclusively contain bug and security fixes and no new features. This is arguably the most important piece of software where people need to watch out for updates carefully, but its release version policy is a bit loony.
- fao_ 1y ago
  > This is arguably the most important piece of software where people need to watch out for updates carefully, but its release version policy is a bit loony. How so? That seems pretty well defined to me. Just because it's not major/minor/patch, doesn't mean that it's bad
- frizlab 1y ago
  They changed that; they are mostly (but not exactly) semver now. https://github.com/openssl/general-policies/blob/master/policies/versioning-policy.md https://github.com/openssl/general-policies/blob/master/poli...
- antoncohen 1y ago
  Oh, but what about Ruby's versioning policy, which they call "Semantic Versioning", but the semantics are: > MINOR: increased every christmas, may be API incompatible That's right, the semantic meaning behind minor versions is that they are released on Christmas Day. They may or may not be API compatible, who knows. https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/12/21/ruby-version-policy-changes-with-2-1-0/ https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/12/21/ruby-version-po...
peter-m80 1y ago
Majors are the shame versions. Your interface was not well thought and you need to break backwards compatibility

53 points by laacz 1y ago

I very much prefer Gregorian versioning. Also lets you instantly know whether that nice app you’ve just found mentioned somewhere is still being updated or abandoned for 5 years already.

eichin 1y ago
Do you mean calendar-year-major version numbers? (ubuntu aspell-en is "2020.12.07-0-1") I like the name, but google only found this comment mentioning it :-)
- mbb70 1y ago
  Normally just called calendar versioning
- chrismorgan 1y ago
  A more common name for it is calendar versioning. One spec for such a thing is CalVer, but I flatly refuse to ever label anything as that, because they got their terminology horribly wrong, making MM be 1–12 and 0M 01–12 (and so on for each of Y, W and D too). YYYY.MM should obviously mean 2025.08, and 2025.8 should be YYYY.M.

neilellis 1y ago

Love it!

carterschonwald 1y ago

This is kinda what we’ve all been doing all along!

reb 1y ago

Finally, a versioning scheme that's rooted in reality

Spivak 1y ago
They forgot the real first digit, the marketing version.

blahgeek 1y ago

This makes more sense than it looks. semver is a lie because every change is a breaking change (Hyrum’s law)

cloudbonsai 1y ago

This is cute, but I find OpenSSL's version policy way funnier. Here I quote it verbatim from https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Versioning https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Versioning: *Major releases* that change one/both of the first two digits, which can break compatibility with previous versions *Minor releases* that change the last digit, e.g. 1.1.0 vs. 1.1.1, can and are likely to contain new features, but in a way that does not break binary compatibility. This means that an application compiled and dynamically linked with 1.1.0 does not need to be recompiled when the shared library is updated to 1.1.1. It should be noted that some features are transparent to the application such as the maximum negotiated TLS version and cipher suites, performance improvements and so on. There is no need to recompile applications to benefit from these features. *Letter releases,* such as 1.0.2a, exclusively contain bug and security fixes and no new features. This is arguably the most important piece of software where people need to watch out for updates carefully, but its release version policy is a bit loony.

fao_ 1y ago
> This is arguably the most important piece of software where people need to watch out for updates carefully, but its release version policy is a bit loony. How so? That seems pretty well defined to me. Just because it's not major/minor/patch, doesn't mean that it's bad
frizlab 1y ago
They changed that; they are mostly (but not exactly) semver now. https://github.com/openssl/general-policies/blob/master/policies/versioning-policy.md https://github.com/openssl/general-policies/blob/master/poli...
antoncohen 1y ago
Oh, but what about Ruby's versioning policy, which they call "Semantic Versioning", but the semantics are: > MINOR: increased every christmas, may be API incompatible That's right, the semantic meaning behind minor versions is that they are released on Christmas Day. They may or may not be API compatible, who knows. https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/12/21/ruby-version-policy-changes-with-2-1-0/ https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/12/21/ruby-version-po...

peter-m80 1y ago

Majors are the shame versions. Your interface was not well thought and you need to break backwards compatibility