[Backgroundrb-devel] version numbering policy

hemant kumar gethemant at gmail.com
Fri Sep 19 09:16:06 EDT 2008

I was hoping for two things to fix before bumping the version to 1.1:

* Problem with running packet as frozen gem.
* close to 100% coverage (currently at 67%)

I couldn't manage that with 1.0.4 release and hence even though 1.0.4
involved API changes and was really way better than previous versions, I
didn't do a major version bump.

But I don't want this to be my decision. If folks are willing to put
some time and effort in helping out, we can discuss this beforehand and
make such decisions.

On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 14:43 +0200, Jack Nutting wrote:
> IMHO, the amount of changes that happen from one release to the next
> should warrant much bigger version numbering changes.  E.g. I am in
> the process of upgrading from (I think) 1.0.1 to 1.0.4, and had to do
> a substantial amount of poring over code and making changes due to API
> changes.  It seems to me that that amount of changes in the codebase
> should at least warrant a bump to 1.1.  I guess that to my way of
> thinking, a change in the first number should indicate major changes
> in a project's structure or direction, a change in the the second
> number should indicate significant functional additions, changes, or
> API changes, while a change in the third number should really just be
> about bug-fixes and minor enhancements.  What do the rest of you
> think?

More information about the Backgroundrb-devel mailing list