Skip to content
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

Decide on versioning scheme #661

Closed
1 task
cweagans opened this issue Nov 6, 2015 · 9 comments
Closed
1 task

Decide on versioning scheme #661

cweagans opened this issue Nov 6, 2015 · 9 comments

Comments

@cweagans
Copy link
Member

cweagans commented Nov 6, 2015

@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:

  • Update the name of the "Initial release" milestone to whatever is decided here as the first "stable" release version

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

@cweagans cweagans added this to the Initial release milestone Nov 6, 2015
@masatake
Copy link
Member

masatake commented Nov 9, 2015

@cweagans, I follow your proposal: 1.0.0 and 0.1.0.

@cweagans
Copy link
Member Author

I propose we do the following:

  • Rename the initial release milestone to "1.0.0"
  • When all the issues in the 1.0.0 milestone are closed, we tag 1.0.0-rc1
  • After a month, if there are no more critical, release-blocking issues, we tag 1.0.0. If there are, we fix them, and tag 1.0.0-rc2, rinse, and repeat until we can get through an entire month without release blocking issues.

@universal-ctags/admins any objections to this ^?

@ffes
Copy link
Member

ffes commented Nov 12, 2015

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.

@cweagans
Copy link
Member Author

@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.

@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

blueyed commented Nov 12, 2015

👍

@Wilfred
Copy link
Contributor

Wilfred commented Apr 7, 2016

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.

@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

blueyed commented Apr 7, 2016

@Wilfred
I think #781 is a major blocker, but has a PR (although considered to be unclean?!).

@romgrk
Copy link

romgrk commented Oct 13, 2016

I would recommend using 6.0, this is already causes some issues, eg xolox/vim-easytags#133. Bump btw.

@masatake masatake modified the milestones: 1.0.0: focusing on binary distributions, Mn for 6.0 Jun 26, 2017
@masatake masatake modified the milestones: Mn for 6.0, M0 for 6.0 Dec 2, 2022
@masatake
Copy link
Member

masatake commented Dec 2, 2022

Though I've got many valuable comments, I will use "6.0.0" as the initial tarbal'ed release.
Till these days, I have not had any merit for me to make a release.

However, I guess the versioning may help the development of the citre.
My daily work heavily depends on citre. So I decided to release 6.0.0 with a tarball.

I will release 6.x.0 or 7.0.0 if ctags provides a new feature that has a big impact on citre.
e.g. generic reference tags.

Thank you for the comments. I decides to be selfish for working on ctags longer time.

@masatake masatake closed this as completed Dec 2, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants