I use CalVer in my projects. I might transition to SemVer some time, but given that most of my projects are standalone, it doesn't make much sense to track external compatibility.
Pride Versioning makes no sense, because In never quite proud enough of my work to distinguish it from 0ver.
I've noticed this and seeing it all laid out is hilarious. (So, so many JS frameworks omg)
Is this basically so they can forever say: "Well don't expect it to be feature complete, it's not even 1.0 yet!" ??
I don't think, it's as conscious of a decision. Projects above a certain level of complexity will just never realistically reach the criteria one might associate with a 1.0 (stable API, no known bugs, largely feature-complete). And then especially non-commercial projects just don't have an incentive to arbitrarily proclaim that they fulfill these criteria...
I'm afraid most, if not all, of the projects listed use pride versioning, also.
"We are always hard at work making your experience better!"
This release note has of course been the same for the last 3 years
I once had someone open an issue in my side project repo who asked about a major release bump and whether it meant there were any breaking changes or major changes and I was just like idk I just thought I added enough and felt like bumping the major version ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think is the logic used for Linux kernel versioning so you're in good company.
But everyone should really follow semantic versioning. It makes life so much easier.
either have meaning to the number and do semantic versioning, or don't bother and simply use dates or maybe simple increments
Date based version numbers is just lazy. There's nothing more significant about a release in two weeks (2025.x.y) than today (2024.x.y).
At least with pride versioning there's some logic to it.
the point is just to have a way to tell releases apart, if every release is version 5 then you're going to start self harming
