[ramon156]

- 0.0.1 -> improvements

- 0.1.0 -> breaking changes

- 1.0.0 -> overhaul/refactor needed

I know not every case is easy but this is my rule of thumb. I've honestly never needed a major version change

[Timon3]

That kind of goes counter to semantic versioning, where:

- x.y.Z (patch) -> backward compatible bug fixes

- x.Y.z (minor) -> backward compatible new features

- X.y.z (major) -> breaking changes

But of course it's fine to use whatever versioning scheme you like, as long as you communicate it to your consumers.

https://semver.org/

Edit: updated the version strings for clarity.

[zamadatix]

Minor note, but since the topic is accurate semvar: rule 4 specifies 0.x.y is a special case where anything may change at any time.

[_9y71]

Relevant section: https://semver.org/#:~:text=How%20should%20I,next%20major%20...

[Timon3]

Good point, if we're already being pedantic we should be accurate. I've updated the version strings in my comment, thanks!

[chrisweekly]

Using a 3-digit version like semver, while assigning different semantics, is a recipe for confusion if anyone except you ever refers to a package using this "rule of thumb".

[indrora]

0.0.1 - I fixed a bug

0.1.0 - I rearchitected the bug

1.0.0 - The bug is integral to the codebase.

[i8code]

I agree, the initial set of releases were all over the place. I took the feedback from this thread and fed it to Claude along with the semver.org references that were linked here for more detailed (and pedantic) context. Makes way more sense now. Thanks for the feedback! Claude handled the cleanup. Here's the updated releases: https://github.com/derekg/ts-ssh/releases