Archives at present only store the 'major version' they were made in, i.e. the version they will be compatible with, but we may wish to keep track of more granular version information.
A format like [release-type][major].[minor].[patch].[build] would likely be fine. e.g. 'alpha1.2.3.456789'. The tool is currently in the alpha stage, and it is reasonable to reset the version number at some point when it becomes more mature.
The major version would be incremented when a breaking change is made, i.e. a change that would require migration of archives made in previous versions.
The minor version would be incremented upon the implementation of a feature.
The patch version would be incremented upon the fixing of a bug.
The build version would be incremented... anytime the tool is built, I suppose? I am unsure it would even be particularly useful.
Archives at present only store the 'major version' they were made in, i.e. the version they will be compatible with, but we may wish to keep track of more granular version information.
A format like [release-type][major].[minor].[patch].[build] would likely be fine. e.g. 'alpha1.2.3.456789'. The tool is currently in the alpha stage, and it is reasonable to reset the version number at some point when it becomes more mature.
The major version would be incremented when a breaking change is made, i.e. a change that would require migration of archives made in previous versions.
The minor version would be incremented upon the implementation of a feature.
The patch version would be incremented upon the fixing of a bug.
The build version would be incremented... anytime the tool is built, I suppose? I am unsure it would even be particularly useful.