Question about version in submitting patches

[Kambiz Darabi]

Hi,

in addition to Pascal's great summary, you can also have a
look at the Semantic Versioning web site:

https://semver.org/

Cheers


Kambiz

----- On 27 Nov, 2020, at 15:47, Pascal Bourguignon pjb at informatimago.com wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> Le 27/11/2020 à 13:51, Marco Antoniotti a écrit :
>> Hi
>>
>> Sorry for the general noise, not necessarily related to the issue at hand.
>>
>> I know I am a P.I.T.A.,  but I kind of concluded that versions of the kind
>>
>>     YYYYMMDD
>>
>> Are better than
>>
>>     major.minor.small.itsy.bitsy.bit
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> 
> Well, using a timestamp as version number is not as informative for the
> user as the semantic major.minor.bug version number.
> 
> The usual meaning being that:
> 
> - the major is incremented when incompatible changes to the API are
> made: users updating from one major to another should expect to have to
> invest some work to upgrade their stuff for the new version.
> 
> - the minor is incremented when compatible changes to the API are made
> (additions to the API, or change, with a compatibility layer provided):
> users updating from one minor to another can expect to only have to
> recompile their stuff for the new version, if at all, and no more work.
> 
> - the bug is incremented when bug corrections are made, without any
> change to the API: user updating from one bug to another can expect
> total compatibility and no work at all on their part.
> 
> 
> Instead of that, if you use a timestamp as version number, you now have
> to keep metadata, such as what versions are LTS (long term support), or
> other such attributes.  This works for whole distributions, but not for
> single libraries.
> 
> 
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__