Closed mauritsvanrees closed 6 years ago
Fine with me. Not too many people will be using the command.
Note that the documentation already mentions "no" as the default :-)
Oopsie, I looked wrong. You are right, it is the default already. Closing. :-)
The doc says "no", but the implementation seems to say "yes". I didn't even remember this command existed, so I tried it out just now and I'm getting a number like "1.2" and not "1.2.0".
=> I think you should still change something.
Hm, default seems to be really "no", too. Apparently my head isn't made for double negatives like "less_zeroes=False"... I just can't reason effectively about this.
Tried again, and the default indeed is 'no' and it does what I think it should do.
This is only used in the
bumpversion
command.Current default is 'yes'. That means with a starting version of
1.2.3
:bumpversion --feature
suggests 1.3bumpversion --breaking
suggests 2.0I propose to change the default to 'no'. With the same starting version of
1.2.3
:bumpversion --feature
suggests 1.3.0bumpversion --breaking
suggests 2.0.0That is good for semantic versioning.
I can make the change, but I'd like to know if @reinout agrees. (And others too.)