Append a zero to your initial monthly release #2280

New Issue

OVERLORD · 2026-02-05T03:32:38+03:00

OVERLORD commented

2026-02-05 03:32:38 +03:00

Originally created by @tiredofit on GitHub (Jun 5, 2021).

Describe the feature you'd like
Better consistency with version numbers

Describe the benefits this feature would bring to BookStack users
This is more housekeeping than anything else. Maybe some benefits to those that script things.

Additional context

Adding a .0 for the initial release ie 21.05.0 will be cleaner.

Originally created by @tiredofit on GitHub (Jun 5, 2021). **Describe the feature you'd like** Better consistency with version numbers **Describe the benefits this feature would bring to BookStack users** This is more housekeeping than anything else. Maybe some benefits to those that script things. **Additional context** - Adding a .0 for the initial release ie `21.05.0` will be cleaner.

OVERLORD added the :octocat: Admin/Meta label 2026-02-05 03:32:38 +03:00

OVERLORD closed this issue

2026-02-05 03:32:39 +03:00

OVERLORD commented

2026-02-05 03:32:42 +03:00

@ssddanbrown commented on GitHub (Jun 5, 2021):

Thanks for the suggestion @tiredofit.

To be honest, I thought about that format but the trailing 0 just didn't sit right with me and I find 21.05 by itself to be cleaner. Maybe I'm just used to the Ubuntu versioning that I based the new scheme upon.

In addition, I quite like the distinction in version numbers with the original release. Makes the feature releases a bit more distinct and I don't have to include that trailing zero in my release blog posts, social posts and release notices.

Maybe if there was a functional reason I'd do it as proposed but I've yet to see one. Maybe if someone assumed Semantic Versioning it would break things but that's an incorrect assumption of our version scheme anyway.

@ssddanbrown commented on GitHub (Jun 5, 2021): Thanks for the suggestion @tiredofit. To be honest, I thought about that format but the trailing `0` just didn't sit right with me and I find `21.05` by itself to be cleaner. Maybe I'm just used to the Ubuntu versioning that I based the new scheme upon. In addition, I quite like the distinction in version numbers with the original release. Makes the feature releases a bit more distinct and I don't have to include that trailing zero in my release blog posts, social posts and release notices. Maybe if there was a functional reason I'd do it as proposed but I've yet to see one. Maybe if someone assumed Semantic Versioning it would break things but that's an incorrect assumption of our version scheme anyway.

OVERLORD commented

2026-02-05 03:32:44 +03:00

@tiredofit commented on GitHub (Jun 5, 2021):

No problem. I only brought it up from just seeing the patch releases come a couple times with the 21.04 series and figured it would be more consistent. I didn't anticipate the patch releases personally even being a thing which is what surprised me.. I'll ok with whatever you decide as I said its purely housekeeping and matters of opinion :)

@tiredofit commented on GitHub (Jun 5, 2021): No problem. I only brought it up from just seeing the patch releases come a couple times with the 21.04 series and figured it would be more consistent. I didn't anticipate the patch releases personally even being a thing which is what surprised me.. I'll ok with whatever you decide as I said its purely housekeeping and matters of opinion :)

Sign in to join this conversation.

Branches Tags

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/BookStack#2280