@Orion: although I think the RuneAudio project is great, I fully disagree with your vision on the versioning. Allow me to clarify my thoughs. I am sure there is not much new for you there, but the argumentation is important.
Firstly, there is no absolute rule for versioning. So everyone is free to choose one rule, see for an exotic scheme. But there are useful conventions and the versioning should convey meaning.
Secondly, no software is exempt of bugs. But a missing feature is not a bug. Declare a version stable is just a decision of the developers, normaly motivated by an absence of (important) known bugs. A beta version with no stable release following, with the same number, does not make sense.
Thirdly, it looks you are waiting to implement all the major features to jump to version 1.0. Well, I fear that there will be with the time always new major features to add to the list and then RuneAudio will never reach version 1.0. Why so much fear to pass to version 1? Have a look to , currently version 0.48 after 10 years of existence! I do not say to follow the crazy versioning of Chrome or Firefox, but I think every new major feature should be promoted with a new major version. Does a software looks
less serious with a version reaching 2, 5, 12?
Well, since your are the developer of this project you will have the final word
and I think there are more thrilling topics about RuneAudio. But
it has its importance as part of the communication.
I am waiting the version 0.3 to start hacking it ( with ), keep it up!
Thanks again for all your efforts
. Re: semantic versioning, this is something some of us more or less do intuitively, glad to see someone successfully IMHO organized and wrote down in a systematic fashion. And finally yes, I'd also like to see a way to share and contribute to code. If it's about competition, it should be won by the nber of contributors and the quality of their contributions; I think this project already has good foundations to keep attracting both!
