Revisit phrasing of version strategy question

[jspaaks]

code state: f0201323c3a472055878058dd4188d2b0e545695

[jspaaks]

Updated to:

[jspaaks]

With this latest change, I would like to close this issue, what do you think @tom-h?

[tom-h]

Very close. "different versions of the software are not identified separately" is a bit difficult to parse. "reflect interoperability aspects" in the final answer is really opaque.

But, the points/levels of differentiation are good. I prefer the explanatory text over the wording you've given for the answers. A combination might be better like:

• the software does not make releases, or different versions are not identified (e.g., updates may or may not be available, but when they are, no version or release is indicated)
• (second answer and example are spot on)
• As previous answer, but the version identifier is labelled according to a software versioning scheme (e.g., popular schemes include semantic versioning, calendar versioning. Some software communities may require a specific scheme to be used)

[jspaaks]

• I don't think calendar versioning should be part of the third bullet point above, because it is a plain sequence, i.e. second bullet point.
• Perhaps we could consider replacing the "interoperability" from the third answer with "compatibility"?, something like "As previous answer, and additionally, the version identifier communicates information about compatibility"

[jspaaks]

Updated to:

[jspaaks]

Updated to:

[jspaaks]

With these latest changes, I think we can close this issue.

[tom-h]

agree