Re: [aerogear-dev] [RFC] Initial Versioning Policy

Thoughts? -- cut here -- # AeroGear Versioning Policy For this 1.0.0 release and beyond we're planning some significant changes on how we do versioning for the project. ## TL;DR We're sticking to the de-facto standard of `major`.`minor`.`patchlevel`, mostly know as Semantic Versioning, or just [semver]. ## A bit of history During the early days of the project, we started following the [JBoss Project Versioning] - at that time our assets were mostly Java. Then we found out later that we were doing it wrong, because we forgot the timestamp part of the milestone releases. ## Getting it right So we're going to release 1.0.0 in a few days, and we'll drop the suffixes and work with versions like this: - **bugfixes**: - increment `patch` (1.0.0 -> 1.0.1) Bugfixes and minor changes: keeps API compatibility - **new features and small breaking changes**: - increment `minor` (1.0.1 -> 1.1.0) **Small breaking changes** means that some work **may** be needed for updating beetween minor versions. - **major releases**: - increment `major` (1.1.0 -> 2.0.0) Mostly backward incompatible changes and/or when a group of big features is ready. Any release can use the discriminators .alpha/.beta/.pre for testing, those are sorted right. [semver]:http://semver.org [JBoss Project Versioning]:https://community.jboss.org/wiki/JBossProjectVersioning -- qmx _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev