You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In its current state the versioning actually has three different versions: the project, the back end, and the front end. However, the project's version is redundant, and misleading, because it may be very different from both back end and front end. A better approach is to use two distinct versions for back end, and front end, and possibly accomodate the complement version in both, i.e. tags like v1.2.3-2.1.4 which denote how which versions are compatible with which complement version.
The concept seems poorly thought through now - rethink it, as the title suggests!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In its current state the versioning actually has three different versions: the project, the back end, and the front end. However, the project's version is redundant, and misleading, because it may be very different from both back end and front end. A better approach is to use two distinct versions for back end, and front end, and possibly accomodate the complement version in both, i.e. tags like
v1.2.3-2.1.4
which denote how which versions are compatible with which complement version.The concept seems poorly thought through now - rethink it, as the title suggests!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: