Thanks! Fixed. Sounds like people favour 3.5.1.0 as the style. Seems reasonable.
David On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 16:00, Hugh Parsonage <hugh.parson...@gmail.com> wrote: > 3.5.1.0 with the 4th number (0) for within-release changes. > > Lovely package by the way -- I was looking for it earlier this year > but thought it had been lost! > > The link in the GitHub description appears broken, however. > > On 10 July 2018 at 23:59, David Hugh-Jones <davidhughjo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Just updated my rcheology package with data on functions for R 3.5.1 (no > > change from R 3.5.0 afaik). See https://github.com/hughjonesd/rcheology. > > > > I'm wondering how to version this package. It's not on CRAN yet so it > would > > be good to get things right. > > > > Possibilities: > > > > * Just copy the R versions, so the new version would be 3.5.1 > > Advantages: easy to understand. Disadvantages: semantic versioning would > > follow R, not the package itself (which does contain a single function > with > > a public API); what if I make changes between R releases. > > * ownversion.major.minor-Rversion.major.minor e.g. 0.1.0-3.5.1 > > Advantages: shows the R version clearly, contains own semantic versioning > > information. Disadvantages: long. > > * ownversion.major.minor-Rversionmajorminor e.g. 0.1.0-351 > > Advantage: as above but shorter. Disadvantages: if we hit e.g. 3.10.0, > then > > go back to 4.0.0, then we'd end up going backward in the last component. > > > > Any ideas? > > > > Cheers, > > David > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > > > ______________________________________________ > > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
