From: Intransition Date: 2011-10-15T05:40:39+09:00 Subject: Re: TestR 14.0.0 [and semver] On Oct 14, 3:50 pm, Ryan Davis wrote: > On Oct 14, 2011, at 11:25 , Intransition wrote: > > > On Oct 10, 3:42 am, Ryan Davis wrote: > > >> Version 0.0.1 (2010-10-10) -- your project is now 1 year old exactly... happy birthday! > > >> You're a vocal proponent of semver and you just hit version 14  which means you're doing 1 major/backwards-incompatible release every 1.1667 months. Now that this project is a year old, can you shed any perspective on any of that and how well it has worked? > > > Why I have found myself drifting toward the idea of a "right shifted" > > semiver standard, where the first number is instead a subjective > > concept of the project's version. The second number is then "major", > > for releases with API changes, and the third "minor" (and basically > > merges with "patch") for releases lacking significant API changes. A > > forth number can be used for mid-development "build" or pre-releases. > > For the same reason you start a question and end it with a period or use "forth" instead of "fourth". Likewise asking a question like this of someone who is diametrically opposed to your design and process ideas. It wasn't a question. And I never could suffer a man who couldn't spell a word more than one way. As for the rest, I dare say my designs entail that you should most definitely stick to your opposition.