NuGet and version numbers

[James Kovacs]

Big thanks to Damian and Rob for working on the NuGet package for psake. I do notice that we have two different version number schemes going on. On GitHub.com, psake is versioned as v4.00 and the next version would be v4.01 or something similar. NuGet.org has v4.0.0.0 and v4.0.1.0. We should pick one and stick to it. Does NuGet require a 4-part version number or can we switch to the simpler vMajor.Minor scheme that the current script uses?

James
--
James Kovacs, B.Sc., M.Sc.
http://jameskovacs.com
jko...@post.harvard.edu
@jameskovacs (Twitter)
403-397-3177 (mobile)
jameskovacs (Skype)

[Robz]

You can use from 1 to 4 octets for your version number. It will not keep any leading zeroes though (unfortunately). So if you said it was 

4.01 it would package it as 4.1.

I would prefer the nuget version stay as close to the library version as possible to lessen confusion and probably others would also prefer that as well.

____
Rob
"Be passionate in all you do"

http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynolds
http://ferventcoder.com
http://twitter.com/ferventcoder

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "psake-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to psak...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to psake-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/psake-dev?hl=en.

[DamianH]

Hey gents,

sorry I missed this discussion... I've changed my group membership
accordingly.

I too would prefer if the psake library version stays in lock-step
with the library version, but since I integrated the choclately work,
I reckoned a new pacckage version was required rather than just
replacing the existing package.

From a versioning perspective, I try to adhere to http://semver.org/.
Tbh, I couldn't decide whether this should be a 'minor' revision or a
'patch'. I went with patch as it's easier to go forward from that.

I've happily agreed to actively maintain the NuGet package on the
gallery and I will post to this group before making any future
changes.

As to going to simpler vMajor.Minor, I don't see a problem with that,
but as Rob said, leading zeros will be trimmed.

James, I can make the necessary changes to bump the version to 4.1
(without the leading zero) so the project and package versions are
back in sync and submit a pull request?

- Damian

http://dhickey.ie
http://twitter.com/randompunter

On May 2, 6:18 pm, Robz <trueblu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can use from 1 to 4 octets for your version number. It will not keep any
> leading zeroes though (unfortunately). So if you said it was
> 4.01 it would package it as 4.1.
>
> I would prefer the nuget version stay as close to the library version as
> possible to lessen confusion and probably others would also prefer that as
> well.
>
> ____
> Rob
> "Be passionate in all you do"
>

> http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynoldshttp://ferventcoder.comhttp://twitter.com/ferventcoder

>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:22 PM, James Kovacs <jkov...@post.harvard.edu>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Big thanks to Damian and Rob for working on the NuGet package for psake. I
> > do notice that we have two different version number schemes going on. On
> > GitHub.com, psake is versioned as v4.00 and the next version would be v4.01
> > or something similar. NuGet.org has v4.0.0.0 and v4.0.1.0. We should pick
> > one and stick to it. Does NuGet require a 4-part version number or can we
> > switch to the simpler vMajor.Minor scheme that the current script uses?
>
> > James
> > --
> > James Kovacs, B.Sc., M.Sc.
> >http://jameskovacs.com

> > jkov...@post.harvard.edu

[Rob Reynolds]

I love SemVer. If only everyone adhered to it, the world would be a less confusing place. :D

[DamianH]

We could really do with better tooling in that area. Automatic SemVer
versioning on API analysis would be sweet.

On May 3, 5:09 pm, Rob Reynolds <ferventco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I love SemVer. If only everyone adhered to it, the world would be a less
> confusing place. :D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:19 AM, DamianH <dhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey gents,
>
> > sorry I missed this discussion... I've changed my group membership
> > accordingly.
>
> > I too would prefer if the psake library version stays in lock-step
> > with the library version, but since I integrated the choclately work,
> > I reckoned a new pacckage version was required rather than just
> > replacing the existing package.
>

> > From a versioning perspective, I try to adhere tohttp://semver.org/.

> >http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynoldshttp://ferventcoder.comhttp://tw...

[James Kovacs]

I would recommend bumping the version to v4.2 to prevent confusion between v4.01 and v4.1. Otherwise go ahead, make the change, and submit a pull request.

Thanks!

James
--
James Kovacs, B.Sc., M.Sc.
http://jameskovacs.com

jko...@post.harvard.edu

@jameskovacs (Twitter)
403-397-3177 (mobile)
jameskovacs (Skype)

[Damian Hickey]

I will get to it this week.

[DamianH]

Sorry, fell off my radar. I've updated the version number and sent a
pull request.

On Jun 6, 7:10 pm, Damian Hickey <dhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will get to it this week.
>

> On 27 May 2011 19:58, James Kovacs <jkov...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I would recommend bumping the version to v4.2 to prevent confusion between
> > v4.01 and v4.1. Otherwise go ahead, make the change, and submit a pull
> > request.
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > James
> > --
> > James Kovacs, B.Sc., M.Sc.
> >http://jameskovacs.com

> > jkov...@post.harvard.edu
>
> > @jameskovacs (Twitter)
> > 403-397-3177 (mobile)
> > jameskovacs (Skype)
>