Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
There seems to be a frequent trend in the growing open source world to number releases as 0.x even if they are to be treated as a major release. In some cases, there may not even be compatibility between two minor releases. Can anyone help me understand if there’s a good reason or rationale for doing this in certain cases, or is it just a perfectionist streak leading developers to feel like they aren’t ever really done?
It’s not entirely a matter of personal preference – in some settings (in the enterprise proprietary software world, at least) the decision of whether an update is a point release or something else triggers business and legal consequences, such as a requirement to provide the release for free (or not).
I suspect that paid support contracts for open source software deployed in business have similar consequences – what services are included and what have an extra charge, my depend on the level of the update.
For more general discussion about versioning here are two SO questions: This and this.