Let's just not do more than one format change in a single day... I think that would be a beneficial decision for project stability as well...
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:26:27PM +0200, Timofonic wrote: > Despite my very limited knowledge, I like the simple approach. > > What about using letters if more than one format change is done? > > 20160412A, 20160412B, 20160412C... > > On April 12, 2016 2:30:23 PM CEST, Chris Pavlina <pavlina.ch...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >Honestly I don't see the advantage to using Semantic Versioning for an > >internal file format version... and using 2016.04.12 instead of > >20160412 > >just seems like an exercise in making the parser more complicated. > >Could > >you explain *why* this would be a good thing? > >On Apr 12, 2016 1:51 AM, "David Cary" <d.cary+2...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > >> Please at least consider Semantic Versioning ( http://semver.org/ ). > >> And I recommend that if you figure out any way to improve on SemVer, > >> please speak up so maybe the next version of SemVer can incorporate > >> those improvements. > >> > >> I have enjoyed the discussion of new features and various ideas for > >> versioning, and I encourage you to discuss them further. > >> > >> I am happy that the native KiCad file formats already avoid many > >> problems mentioned in > >> "Designing File Formats" http://www.fadden.com/tech/file-formats.html > >> . > >> Are there any remaining recommendations in that essay that maybe we > >> should include in future versions of KiCad file formats? > >> > >> If hypothetically we did use Semantic Versioning, > >> would it be better to do (a) or (b)?: > >> (a) have a single KiCad version number that KiCad writes into every > >> new file it creates, or > >> (b) have a separate and independent version number for each part of > >> KiCad -- the Eeschema version number written into new schematic > >files, > >> a separate Pcbnew version number written into new footprint and PCB > >> layout files, etc. > >> > >> (How many independent version numbers could option (b) require?) > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Chris Pavlina > ><pavlina.ch...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > What about using the date the change was made as a "version > >number"? Can > >> > integerize it like 20160407 for example. This allows easy > >> cross-referencing of > >> > a format version with the revision that it was made in, and is > >> guaranteed to > >> > increase monotonically if you use a YMD format :) > >> > >> I agree with Wayne that it's more meaningful than most version > >strings. > >> > >> My understanding is that "integerized date" without punctuation is > >> more commonly known as the "ISO 8601 date basic format". > >> > >> Recently I've been putting a date like that on the silkscreen of my > >> PCBs. (I use the "ISO 8601 date extended format" like 2016-04-07, the > >> format produced by the KiCad "%D" format symbol). > >> > >> Is it possible to combine that with Semantic versioning, getting > >> something like 2016.04.07 ? > >> (This assumes we won't make a breaking change in the file format more > >> than once a year -- optimistic? :-) > >> > >> -- > >> David Cary > >> +1(918)813-2279 > >> http://OpenCircuits.com/ > >> http://david.carybros.com/ > >> > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > >Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > -- > Enviado desde mi dispositivo Android con K-9 Mail. Por favor disculpa mi > brevedad. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
