Anthony Fu’s epoch versioning scheme (to differentiate breaking change majors from "marketing" majors) could yield easy winners here, at least on the raw version number alone (not the number of sequential versions released):
Anthony Fu’s epoch versioning scheme (to differentiate breaking change majors from "marketing" majors) could yield easy winners here, at least on the raw version number alone (not the number of sequential versions released):
> People often assume that a zero-major version indicates that the software is not ready for production
I wonder why. Conventions that are being broken, maybe.
I don't know if this is the origin, but the semver spec says 0.x.y is unstable. Sure, not everybody uses semver, but it is popular enough for people to make incorrect assumptions.
https://semver.org/#spec-item-4
It's not the origin. Using 0.x for stuff like this was already a thing long before semver. For example, the very first release of Linux in 1991 was v0.01.
I agree with that sentiment.
If the guy writing and maintaining the software is stating "this software is not stable yet" then who am I to disagree?