versioning about bccresquebundle

[lightglitch]

I at least would like to have the 1.1.8 with #67 because for me to upgrade to dev-master right now it would need serious testing.

If doesn't happen I wiil have to fork it.

[mrbase]

there is now a 1.1.8 branch

[ruudk]

I'm wondering why we have this branches? Because it's harder to maintain and users can just stick to a specific commit, right?

We should just dev in master and then release a beta for 1.2?

I'm hoping that we can move @chrisboulton to tag a new release for PHP-Resque (chrisboulton/php-resque#112)

[wridgers]

Please consider using something like SemVer

Because it's harder to maintain and users can just stick to a specific commit, right?

It's only slightly more work and it makes the lives of your users considerably easier. Instead of getting minor patches and bug fixes automatically, users must regularly check to see if there are any updates that they might need (bugfixes, etc). If I depend on 20 packages, am I supposed to check them each every day for patches? You are doing your users a huge disservice.

Further, any sensible developer who is going to use something in a production environment will install a package at the latest version (obviously not master, since master for 99% of other projects means 'unstable'). In the case of BCCResqueBundle, doing so will land you with a release that is two years old.

[danhunsaker]

PHP-Resque itself hasn't moved much in that same period. You're getting two year old code either way.

Also, recommending SemVer in an issue whose opening post points out the same things SemVer does leads me to believe that there may be an incomplete understanding of the conversation. Just because it wasn't mentioned by name doesn't mean it's not already in place.

[wridgers]

PHP-Resque itself hasn't moved much in that same period. You're getting two year old code either way.

Enough has changed that when I modified my composer.json to properly version lock this package everything broke and it took me a good few minutes of wasted time to figure out why.

Perhaps I should have created a new issue. I really just wanted to bring up the conversation on versioning again and this issue seemed like a good place to do that.

I don't understand the logic behind not using a versioning system.