Use only 3-number release versions

HDF Group, I see that you are planning another “patch release”. Please stick with only simple three-number release codes, with the third number as the patch version. Please stop using an occasional fourth number such as “”, or other fancy numbering or lettering systems. Extra codes create extra work and confusion for downstream consumers and packaging systems, for which I occasionally volunteer. Thank you for your consideration.

1 Like

Hi @dave.allured,

for getting this patch release out (and fixing the problems with h5py), it would be far easier for us to stick with what we’ve been doing, leading to a “” release. This comes about since we don’t really follow semantic versioning and so the first version number is essentially meaningless for packaging systems. That said, we have recently been discussing this and are planning to stick to semantic versioning in the (near?) future. If you happen to have any resources you could point us to that discuss what package management systems typically expect in terms of version numbers, it would be a great help. Do most or all modern package managers all generally stick to the major.minor.patch scheme?

I know of two schemes:

  1. SemVer
  2. CalVer