Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
Administrator
|
As I mentioned in the release notes for 0.1.4, we're shifting the version numbering in the next release of Asciidoctor core so we can leverage all the parts (major, minor and micro). That's why the next release will be 1.5.0.
Here's how I'm thinking we should align.To help users better understand which version of a subproject, such as AsciidoctorJ or one of the build plugins, goes with Asciidoctor core, I'd like to encourage those projects make the switch as well. . If the major version is different between core and another project, the user should not expect that they work together (though, they may). . We recommend that at least the minor version match. Projects should not increment their minor version ahead of core, as this gives the impression there is a newer core available. . The user should not infer any relationship between micro versions across projects. That position is entirely up to the project to increment at will. However, the project should ensure to maintain capability with the major + minor version of core when doing so. -Dan |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
Theory sounds good, the actual practice of it (speaking for myself and my time available to put in, I'm not SuperMan like Dan and can pull 20 hour days) may not be as rosy or as quick paced. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM, mojavelinux [via Asciidoctor :: Discussion] <[hidden email]> wrote:
... [show rest of quote] |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
Administrator
|
Jason, I don't expect it to require extra effort. It's just a proposal to select version numbers with purpose. The main shift is really at the major and minor level. If we switch to 1.x.x, we give ourselves more room for versions. If we agree to use the minor number to track the core library version (e.g., 1.5.x) then things just make a lot more sense. I'm not trying to push projects to go faster or slower, just to align on version numbers in a sensible way. Hopefully that clarifies the goal a bit. -Dan On Nov 7, 2013 10:19 AM, "LightGuardjp [via Asciidoctor :: Discussion]" <[hidden email]> wrote:
... [show rest of quote] If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://discuss.asciidoctor.org/Making-versions-more-meaningful-across-projects-tp961p965.html
To start a new topic under Asciidoctor :: Discussion, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from Asciidoctor :: Discussion, click here. NAML |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
Must have read things wrong. Or my over stressed brain read more into it than was there. Sent from my iPhone
... [show rest of quote]
|
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
What Dan sounds good to me. I will try to move as long as Asciidoctor in AsciidoctorJ, but of course sometimes a new bug, or something could be discovered, and then micro part could be used to fix it.
From AsciidoctorJ point of view it is ok. +1 |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |