Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with semantic-versioning
Search options not deleted
user 34752
De-facto standard for using multi-part version numbers like {major}.{minor}.{patch-level} followed optionally by pre-release labels.
18
votes
2
answers
2k
views
Semantic versioning when fixing an important bug
I currently manage a library which has a lot of public usage, and I had a question about semantic versioning. I want to refactor one fairly important part of the library which is implemented incorrect …
- 233