Timeline for Why is build.number an "abuse" of semantic versioning?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/ | |
| May 16, 2015 at 22:46 | comment | added | Andy | " you have version 5.7, and you want to patch it to 5.7.1, but your first 2 bugfixes fail to build when they are submitted to the CI system, then you will be at 5.7.3 before you've released your first patch!" ok, but so what? I don't recall anything in semver saying the numbers must not skip. | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 15:58 | comment | added | Doval | The SemVer 2.0 spec is from 2013 and the 1.0 spec is from 2012 as far as I can tell. It's likely NuGet and Ruby were doing their own thing before the spec appeared. It's not like the SemVer spec is novel; it just formalizes what people have already been doing so we can all finally agree on one way to do it instead of a dozen variations. | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 15:54 | comment | added | gbjbaanb | Even that is broken in the field, for example Microsoft's NuGet versioning uses semver, in a broken way (using the prerelease style for build numbers), and Ruby uses major.minor.teeny.patch. Anyway, as the build number can be part of the semver, the architect was talking tosh (though admittedly, it should be +build, not in the 3rd position). | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 15:44 | comment | added | Doval | Although there's no standard that's universally used or enforced, the question appears to be specifically about semantic versioning which does have a specification. | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 15:27 | history | edited | gbjbaanb | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 372 characters in body |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 15:12 | history | edited | gbjbaanb | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 712 characters in body |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 15:07 | history | answered | gbjbaanb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |