So it was a bit disheartening that the founders never bumped the version to 2.x once the rollout was achieved. It's perhaps a bit nitpicky, but it felt like the work wasn't properly appreciated.
I'm a one man shop though so I never branch for major/minor releases.
Honestly, for my one-man projects I use 0. to indicate "there is absolutely no backwards compatibility guarantees because I'm still fucking around" and 1. to indicate "this is in prod and I'm confident about it" (with attendant discipline on how semver major/minors are supposed to be used).
> Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable.
> Version 1.0.0 defines the public API. The way in which the version number is incremented after this release is dependent on this public API and how it changes.
> If your software is being used in production, it should probably already be 1.0.0.
I say that mostly jokingly, but stuff like this was really annoying around the turn of the century, in a death by a thousand cuts kind of way.
Please, just put the full year in. It's only two more digits, and will prevent the older people that see it from building a little bit of rage up every time they see it.
But for common libraries SemVer feels good solution for not breaking the main products and helps making developers to think about breaking changes etc.
you can't prove me wrong
I'd bet everything I own against that
[Y2K Programming solutions]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem#Programming_...
It is also much easier to reference when talking with other devs, users, etc.
We all know the calendar and a date is much easier to remember.
Straight increases 5, 6, 7 ar also easier for user to reference.
An internal rewrite where all the "old bugs" are fixed, but minimal new features are added may feel like a 2.0 for those who worked on it, but for external customers it's the same tool, with the same functionality, just maybe looks a little different.
A 2.0 is often heralded with marketing fanfare, so it needs justification.
I'm not saying it's right, or that one rule fits all; I've seen it first hand and feel your pain.
Versions were bumped now and then, without real major changes.
They use this as marketing gimmick to create buzz that something major is being released but actually it was same old stuff just not ready for primetime.