AsciidoctorJ - Versioning scheme

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AsciidoctorJ - Versioning scheme

mikado
Hi,

I'm curious about the naming scheme for releases of AsciidoctorJ.
I just discovered that a new version 1.5.5 was freshly released yesterday. Before that, I had implicitly assumed that 1.6.0-alpha.3 was the latest and greatest version.
Maybe someone can enlighten me, why there has been a "jump backwards" in the version history?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AsciidoctorJ - Versioning scheme

mojavelinux
Administrator
@mikado,

We're maintaining two parallel release branches at the moment while things settle. It's fair to say that the 1.5.x branch is the maintenance release and 1.6.x is the next mainline release (at least for AsciidoctorJ core). However, AsciidoctorJ is stuck waiting on Asciidoctor Ruby core to make that jump (and on me to get the AsciidoctorJ PDF repository fully setup).

My general advice is still the same. If you are just using AsciidoctorJ to convert without any customizations, then use AsciidoctorJ 1.5.5. If you're writing extensions or using the AST, then use AsciidoctorJ 1.6.0 alpha.

Cheers,

-Dan

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:42 PM, mikado [via Asciidoctor :: Discussion] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I'm curious about the naming scheme for releases of AsciidoctorJ.
I just discovered that a new version 1.5.5 was freshly released yesterday. Before that, I had implicitly assumed that 1.6.0-alpha.3 was the latest and greatest version.
Maybe someone can enlighten me, why there has been a "jump backwards" in the version history?


If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://discuss.asciidoctor.org/AsciidoctorJ-Versioning-scheme-tp5377.html
To start a new topic under Asciidoctor :: Discussion, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from Asciidoctor :: Discussion, click here.
NAML



--
Dan Allen | @mojavelinux | https://twitter.com/mojavelinux