-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 633
Decide on versioning scheme #661
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
@cweagans, I follow your proposal: 1.0.0 and 0.1.0. |
I propose we do the following:
@universal-ctags/admins any objections to this ^? |
Sounds good to me. Just think that 0.1.0 is a bit low. 0.9.0 sounds more like we are working towards a proper release. |
@ffes I don't think we should do a 0.1.0. Let's just do 1.0.0 with release candidates before the final release in case anything comes up. |
👍 |
Could we tag a 0.9.0 or a release candidate at this point? There are 19 issues outstanding for 1.0.0, but the code is very useful today. |
I would recommend using 6.0, this is already causes some issues, eg xolox/vim-easytags#133. Bump btw. |
Though I've got many valuable comments, I will use "6.0.0" as the initial tarbal'ed release. However, I guess the versioning may help the development of the citre. I will release 6.x.0 or 7.0.0 if ctags provides a new feature that has a big impact on citre. Thank you for the comments. I decides to be selfish for working on ctags longer time. |
@masatake brought this up here: #652 (comment)
I prefer using semver and starting with 1.0.0 since Universal Ctags != Exuberant Ctags. @masatake prefers 6.0.
When this discussion is resolved:
I'm also in favor of having an earlier non-stable release (just for the sake of putting a line in the sand that people working on packaging can reference), perhaps 0.1.0?
cc @universal-ctags/admins @universal-ctags/developers
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: