Decide on versioning scheme

[cweagans]

@masatake brought this up here: #652 (comment)

I prefer using semver and starting with 1.0.0 since Universal Ctags != Exuberant Ctags. @masatake prefers 6.0.

When this discussion is resolved:

• Update the name of the "Initial release" milestone to whatever is decided here as the first "stable" release version

I'm also in favor of having an earlier non-stable release (just for the sake of putting a line in the sand that people working on packaging can reference), perhaps 0.1.0?

cc @universal-ctags/admins @universal-ctags/developers

[masatake]

@cweagans, I follow your proposal: 1.0.0 and 0.1.0.

[cweagans]

I propose we do the following:

• Rename the initial release milestone to "1.0.0"
• When all the issues in the 1.0.0 milestone are closed, we tag 1.0.0-rc1
• After a month, if there are no more critical, release-blocking issues, we tag 1.0.0. If there are, we fix them, and tag 1.0.0-rc2, rinse, and repeat until we can get through an entire month without release blocking issues.

@universal-ctags/admins any objections to this ^?

[ffes]

Sounds good to me.

Just think that 0.1.0 is a bit low. 0.9.0 sounds more like we are working towards a proper release.

[cweagans]

@ffes I don't think we should do a 0.1.0. Let's just do 1.0.0 with release candidates before the final release in case anything comes up.

[blueyed]

👍

[Wilfred]

Could we tag a 0.9.0 or a release candidate at this point? There are 19 issues outstanding for 1.0.0, but the code is very useful today.

[blueyed]

@Wilfred
I think #781 is a major blocker, but has a PR (although considered to be unclean?!).

[romgrk]

I would recommend using 6.0, this is already causes some issues, eg xolox/vim-easytags#133. Bump btw.