mirror of
https://github.com/semver/semver.git
synced 2025-08-25 07:15:30 +00:00
Extract spec from https://github.com/mojombo/semver.org.
This commit is contained in:
commit
ec27d6a2cd
203
semver.md
Normal file
203
semver.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
|
||||
Semantic Versioning 1.0.0
|
||||
=========================
|
||||
|
||||
In the world of software management there exists a dread place called
|
||||
"dependency hell." The bigger your system grows and the more packages you
|
||||
integrate into your software, the more likely you are to find yourself, one
|
||||
day, in this pit of despair.
|
||||
|
||||
In systems with many dependencies, releasing new package versions can quickly
|
||||
become a nightmare. If the dependency specifications are too tight, you are in
|
||||
danger of version lock (the inability to upgrade a package without having to
|
||||
release new versions of every dependent package). If dependencies are
|
||||
specified too loosely, you will inevitably be bitten by version promiscuity
|
||||
(assuming compatibility with more future versions than is reasonable).
|
||||
Dependency hell is where you are when version lock and/or version promiscuity
|
||||
prevent you from easily and safely moving your project forward.
|
||||
|
||||
As a solution to this problem, I propose a simple set of rules and
|
||||
requirements that dictate how version numbers are assigned and incremented.
|
||||
For this system to work, you first need to declare a public API. This may
|
||||
consist of documentation or be enforced by the code itself. Regardless, it is
|
||||
important that this API be clear and precise. Once you identify your public
|
||||
API, you communicate changes to it with specific increments to your version
|
||||
number. Consider a version format of X.Y.Z (Major.Minor.Patch). Bug fixes not
|
||||
affecting the API increment the patch version, backwards compatible API
|
||||
additions/changes increment the minor version, and backwards incompatible API
|
||||
changes increment the major version.
|
||||
|
||||
I call this system "Semantic Versioning." Under this scheme, version numbers
|
||||
and the way they change convey meaning about the underlying code and what has
|
||||
been modified from one version to the next.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Semantic Versioning Specification (SemVer)
|
||||
------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
|
||||
"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
|
||||
interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
|
||||
|
||||
1. Software using Semantic Versioning MUST declare a public API. This API
|
||||
could be declared in the code itself or exist strictly in documentation.
|
||||
However it is done, it should be precise and comprehensive.
|
||||
|
||||
1. A normal version number MUST take the form X.Y.Z where X, Y, and Z are
|
||||
integers. X is the major version, Y is the minor version, and Z is the patch
|
||||
version. Each element MUST increase numerically by increments of one. For
|
||||
instance: 1.9.0 -> 1.10.0 -> 1.11.0.
|
||||
|
||||
1. When a major version number is incremented, the minor version and patch
|
||||
version MUST be reset to zero. When a minor version number is incremented, the
|
||||
patch version MUST be reset to zero. For instance: 1.1.3 -> 2.0.0 and 2.1.7 ->
|
||||
2.2.0.
|
||||
|
||||
1. A pre-release version number MAY be denoted by appending an arbitrary
|
||||
string immediately following the patch version and a decimal point. The string
|
||||
MUST be comprised of only alphanumerics plus dash [0-9A-Za-z-] and MUST begin
|
||||
with an alpha character [A-Za-z]. Pre-release versions satisfy but have a
|
||||
lower precedence than the associated normal version. Precedence SHOULD be
|
||||
determined by lexicographic ASCII sort order. For instance: 1.0.0.alpha1 <
|
||||
1.0.0.beta1 < 1.0.0.beta2 < 1.0.0.rc1 < 1.0.0.
|
||||
|
||||
1. Once a versioned package has been released, the contents of that version
|
||||
MUST NOT be modified. Any modifications must be released as a new version.
|
||||
|
||||
1. Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything may change
|
||||
at any time. The public API should not be considered stable.
|
||||
|
||||
1. Version 1.0.0 defines the public API. The way in which the version number
|
||||
is incremented after this release is dependent on this public API and how it
|
||||
changes.
|
||||
|
||||
1. Patch version Z (x.y.Z | x > 0) MUST be incremented if only backwards
|
||||
compatible bug fixes are introduced. A bug fix is defined as an internal
|
||||
change that fixes incorrect behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
1. Minor version Y (x.Y.z | x > 0) MUST be incremented if new, backwards
|
||||
compatible functionality is introduced to the public API. It MAY be
|
||||
incremented if substantial new functionality or improvements are introduced
|
||||
within the private code. It MAY include patch level changes.
|
||||
|
||||
1. Major version X (X.y.z | X > 0) MUST be incremented if any backwards
|
||||
incompatible changes are introduced to the public API. It MAY include minor
|
||||
and patch level changes.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Tagging Specification (SemVerTag)
|
||||
---------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
This sub-specification SHOULD be used if you use a version control system
|
||||
(Git, Mercurial, SVN, etc) to store your code. Using this system allows
|
||||
automated tools to inspect your package and determine SemVer compliance and
|
||||
released versions.
|
||||
|
||||
1. When tagging releases in a version control system, the tag for a version
|
||||
MUST be "vX.Y.Z" e.g. "v3.1.0".
|
||||
|
||||
1. The first revision that introduces SemVer compliance SHOULD be tagged
|
||||
"semver". This allows pre-existing projects to assume compliance at any
|
||||
arbitrary point and for automated tools to discover this fact.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Why Use Semantic Versioning?
|
||||
----------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
This is not a new or revolutionary idea. In fact, you probably do something
|
||||
close to this already. The problem is that "close" isn't good enough. Without
|
||||
compliance to some sort of formal specification, version numbers are
|
||||
essentially useless for dependency management. By giving a name and clear
|
||||
definition to the above ideas, it becomes easy to communicate your intentions
|
||||
to the users of your software. Once these intentions are clear, flexible (but
|
||||
not too flexible) dependency specifications can finally be made.
|
||||
|
||||
A simple example will demonstrate how Semantic Versioning can make dependency
|
||||
hell a thing of the past. Consider a library called "Firetruck." It requires a
|
||||
Semantically Versioned package named "Ladder." At the time that Firetruck is
|
||||
created, Ladder is at version 3.1.0. Since Firetruck uses some functionality
|
||||
that was first introduced in 3.1.0, you can safely specify the Ladder
|
||||
dependency as greater than or equal to 3.1.0 but less than 4.0.0. Now, when
|
||||
Ladder version 3.1.1 and 3.2.0 become available, you can release them to your
|
||||
package management system and know that they will be compatible with existing
|
||||
dependent software.
|
||||
|
||||
As a responsible developer you will, of course, want to verify that any
|
||||
package upgrades function as advertised. The real world is a messy place;
|
||||
there's nothing we can do about that but be vigilant. What you can do is let
|
||||
Semantic Versioning provide you with a sane way to release and upgrade
|
||||
packages without having to roll new versions of dependent packages, saving you
|
||||
time and hassle.
|
||||
|
||||
If all of this sounds desirable, all you need to do to start using Semantic
|
||||
Versioning is to declare that you are doing so and then follow the rules. Link
|
||||
to this website from your README so others know the rules and can benefit from
|
||||
them.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
FAQ
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### How do I know when to release 1.0.0?
|
||||
|
||||
If your software is being used in production, it should probably already be
|
||||
1.0.0. If you have a stable API on which users have come to depend, you should
|
||||
be 1.0.0. If you're worrying a lot about backwards compatibility, you should
|
||||
probably already be 1.0.0.
|
||||
|
||||
### Doesn't this discourage rapid development and fast iteration?
|
||||
|
||||
Major version zero is all about rapid development. If you're changing the API
|
||||
every day you should either still be in version 0.x.x or on a separate
|
||||
development branch working on the next major version.
|
||||
|
||||
### If even the tiniest backwards incompatible changes to the public API require a major version bump, won't I end up at version 42.0.0 very rapidly?
|
||||
|
||||
This is a question of responsible development and foresight. Incompatible
|
||||
changes should not be introduced lightly to software that has a lot of
|
||||
dependent code. The cost that must be incurred to upgrade can be significant.
|
||||
Having to bump major versions to release incompatible changes means you'll
|
||||
think through the impact of your changes, and evaluate the cost/benefit ratio
|
||||
involved.
|
||||
|
||||
### Documenting the entire public API is too much work!
|
||||
|
||||
It is your responsibility as a professional developer to properly document
|
||||
software that is intended for use by others. Managing software complexity is a
|
||||
hugely important part of keeping a project efficient, and that's hard to do if
|
||||
nobody knows how to use your software, or what methods are safe to call. In
|
||||
the long run, Semantic Versioning, and the insistence on a well defined public
|
||||
API can keep everyone and everything running smoothly.
|
||||
|
||||
### What do I do if I accidentally release a backwards incompatible change as a minor version?
|
||||
|
||||
As soon as you realize that you've broken the Semantic Versioning spec, fix
|
||||
the problem and release a new minor version that corrects the problem and
|
||||
restores backwards compatibility. Remember, it is unacceptable to modify
|
||||
versioned releases, even under this circumstance. If it's appropriate,
|
||||
document the offending version and inform your users of the problem so that
|
||||
they are aware of the offending version.
|
||||
|
||||
### What should I do if I update my own dependencies without changing the public API?
|
||||
|
||||
That would be considered compatible since it does not affect the public API.
|
||||
Software that explicitly depends on the same dependencies as your package
|
||||
should have their own dependency specifications and the author will notice any
|
||||
conflicts. Determining whether the change is a patch level or minor level
|
||||
modification depends on whether you updated your dependencies in order to fix
|
||||
a bug or introduce new functionality. I would usually expect additional code
|
||||
for the latter instance, in which case it's obviously a minor level increment.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
About
|
||||
-----
|
||||
|
||||
The Semantic Versioning specification is authored by [Tom Preston-Werner](http://tom.preston-werner.com), inventor of Gravatars and cofounder of GitHub.
|
||||
|
||||
If you'd like to leave feedback, please [open an issue on GitHub](https://github.com/mojombo/semver.org/issues).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
License
|
||||
-------
|
||||
|
||||
Creative Commons - CC BY 3.0
|
||||
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user