> and hints at backwards compatibility.
To me it communicates no commitment to backwards compatibility, i.e. no semantic versioning. This might be enforceable if one is Apple, but doesn't sound good for an open-source platform.
To me it communicates no commitment to backwards compatibility, i.e. no semantic versioning. This might be enforceable if one is Apple, but doesn't sound good for an open-source platform.
That may not sound like much of a promise, but it is. Applications written for GNOME 2.x won't run under 3.x.
x would increment on the removal of a feature
y would increment on the addition or change of a feature
z would increment on a bug fix