Open SamMousa opened 8 years ago
Which elements of semantic versioning are we failing on? It would be great if you'd explain what we're doing wrong, in words that I can understand
Well the most important one I noticed is increasing the major version number when you break backwards compatibility. Currently between 1.9 is not BC with 1.8 and thus should be numbered 2.x.y.
The 1.9 branch isn't in any way stable yet, and shouldn't be used: and unlikely to ever see light of day as PHPExcel 1.9.0..... it's more likely to be 1.0.0 of PHPSpreadsheet instead.... 1.9 is where I'm posting the code changes as I do them so that there's a copy at least if I get hit by a bus, or if the cat fritzes my laptop next time she urinates over it
@MarkBaker don't get hit by a bus, there will be so much delay for the passengers!
I have my minimum stability set to dev, since I do not mind having buggy code (ie code with possible regressions), which is the case for the 1.8.x-dev branch, but now composer will pick up 1.9.x-dev since it thinks it is a compatible dev release.
Anyway, I've double checked and packagist correctly marks 1.8.1 as the latest stable. Of course others don't know about the plan to not ever release 1.9.x-dev as 1.9.x ;-) It would be more intuitive to either move it to a different repo, or name it 2.0.x-dev instead, so that we can see you're working on a new major release. It would also help possible new contributors (I don't want to contribute to 1.8.x if instead I can help get a new major version out instead for example).
Anyway, given the state of 1.9.x-dev it might not be so urgent!
+1
Is that a +1 to my not getting hit by a bus?
:smile: I fully agree with @SamMousa
agree, I just installed using composer require phpoffice/phpexcel
and was stumped that there was no PHPExcel class present... Major BC breaks call for major version changes.
It would be great if you could use semantic versioning!