Bump to 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT, update the pom, add a versioning note #53
Conversation
No docs changes detected for 8b3562b |
README.md
Outdated
| ``` | ||
| A.B.C | ||
| A - Major version, incremented for breaking changes to the wire format | ||
| B - Minor version, incremented for backwards-compatible changes to schema | ||
| C - Patch version, incremented for backwards-compatible bug fixes | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| The minor version will not be reset to zero when the major version is incremented, to indicate relative compatibility | ||
| between two major releases for schema features. That is to say that the minor version is effectively a wire format | ||
| version. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if it would be good to give some examples and describe what is and is not compatible. Some of this wording here is confusing to me wrt what has been previously said. For example,
A - Major version, incremented for breaking changes to the wire format
seems at best incomplete, and potentially misleading without additional context from the rest of this document (that is, a FB bump also bumps the major version); and then it's still not clear to me what the intentions are.
For example, if we truly needed a breaking change to the wire format, what does that look like and how is it different from a "compatible" FB bump?
Would something like
A.B.C.D
A - breaking change wrt wire format
B - breaking change wrt using as library (FB bump implies bump here)
C - backwards-compatible changes to schema(s)
D - backwards-compatible bug fixes
make our versioning easier / more explicit? (I could also see the argument to switch A and B in this example.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that probably matters a little more once we have such an example - a table would be good too of released versions, once we have something beyond 1.0.0?
I don't hate adding a fourth, but its not semver any more explicitly that way. This library is so thin I'm not even sure we can have "bugfixes" beyond doc typos?
Co-authored-by: Charles P. Wright <cpwright@gmail.com>
4 participants
No description provided.