Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dspillett 3902 days ago
Seems valid: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, with the minimum changes being increment "patch" for backwards compatible bug fixes, "minor" for new/improved functionality that does not break backwards compatibility, and "major" for any API/feature change that is not backwards compatible. They could of course chosen to increment MAJOR instead, but they don't have to in this case.

(I'm assuming they are following "standard" semver rules here)
3 comments
dtech 3902 days ago
They don't use semver, and their versioning scheme precedes semver.
link
skrause 3902 days ago
In your example MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH they actually only increased PATCH, Apache 2.4.0 was released in early 2012.
link
dspillett 3901 days ago
Ah, I was assuming the mention of "minor" in the post I replied to was referring to minor in the semver sense, without actually checking. My bad.
link
ta0967 3901 days ago
"backwards compatible bug fixes" don't exist: fixing a bug changes the program's behavior.
link
dspillett 3901 days ago
Compatibility in this case is referring to published APIs and not changing documented behaviour. There are a large family of changes that are bug fixes that don't change correct use of an API - many security fixes for example.
link