Hacker Neue

Preferences
zenoprax parent
Rant incoming... This is the least intuitive and least useful versioning system as a user and sysadmin that I have seen in a long time. Calendar releases ought to follow calendar naming conventions (eg. 25.3 or 20251017 etc.) and non-semantic versioning should try to be obvious. From what I can tell: "multiples of 'four minus one' are LTS" is the numbering scheme (but the software is only good for a year so... why not just call it Forgejo v2025 for its March release?)

https://codeberg.org/forgejo/-/packages/container/forgejo/ve...

At the very least, a stable "LTS" tag would help.

The significance of Forgejo 13.0 is basically zero. A two-year cadence Debian release is newsworthy. Even if this were an LTS this is still not that interesting (unless there is some other context or significance that I'm not aware of).

Rant over.

jwildeboer
If you go to their release page, you will see two versions listed. The current stable release (13.0) and the explicitlly marked LTS version (11), both with clearly visible end of support dates. Not sure how much simpler it can get :)
zenoprax OP
My annoyance was based on that page :D

But I've since learned that they are in fact using SemVer which means it was my expectations of what the project was trying to do that was mismatched. I didn't expect Major updates to mirror a quarterly cadence.

ezst
Their project, their rules. I don't know why you would think that your ideologies automatically translate into something that's convenient or better for them.
zenoprax OP
Fair - I don't know why they've chosen the current numbering so I looked it up:

https://forgejo.org/docs/v11.0/user/versions/

They use SemVer so there really are Major breaking changes every 3 months by their own definition.

I suppose my assumption was that the software was basically "feature complete" but they must be working hard to add more to it.

This item has no comments currently.