-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
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
should the next release be ripgrep 11 or ripgrep 0.11? #1172
Comments
So like the major version would just get bumped for each significant new release, similar to how Postgres and Firefox do it, rather than using a semver-style system? I wouldn't mind it, personally, for whatever that's worth. I don't maintain any projects that rely on ripgrep where semver might be useful, though |
Pretty much, yes. I would still adhere to semver though. I'd just only do breaking changes in major version releases. Basically, I want to make bumping the major version a normal occurrence. Occasionally there may be a breaking change, but I feel confident breaking changes can be kept very small. |
Are you going to change anything about the versioning on the libraries ( |
@okdana Ah, no, def not. Just ripgrep itself. |
This sets up the release announcement and briefly describes the versioning change. The actual version change itself won't happen until the release. Closes #1172
yes, this version jump is not a mistake Upstream discussion: BurntSushi/ripgrep#1172 Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.62, Repoman-2.3.12 Signed-off-by: Georgy Yakovlev <[email protected]>
Originally, I had thought that ripgrep would reach 1.0 some day and sit there for a long time with no backwards incompatible changes. In practice, ripgrep has seen very few backwards incompatible changes and no complaints about them thus far as far as I know. Instead of trying to commit to a 1.0 release, I thought it might be nice to just move the minor version over to the major version and subsequently be more flexible about bumping the major version while retaining our fairly conservative policy with regard to backwards incompatible changes.
Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: