> applying [the subset of] semver [commonly used in practice] to your projects, though. 1.2 and 1.2.3 are both valid versions, it’s just that instead of 1.2.0, you’d write 1.2; As I understand the SemVer specification, 1.2 isn’t a valid version.

From the specification: > 2. A normal version number MUST take the form X.Y.Z where X, Y, and Z are non-negative integers, […] Also check the BNF grammar further down on the page.

This leaves me with the choice to either follow SemVer or Racket. :upside_down_face:

Right. The way I see it, semver is more about giving versions meaning (i.e. the semantic parts), not so much the specific syntax (and 1.2.0 doesn’t convey any more information than 1.2 does)

Anyway, I just wanted to share the info. I don’t feel strongly about any of this :D.

> The way I see it, semver is more about giving versions meaning (i.e. the semantic parts), not so much the specific syntax I agree that the semantics are the most interesting feature (and that’s why I use it). On the other hand, regarding the syntax, if I see a version number like “1.2”, I’d think it’s not SemVer and hence probably doesn’t follow its semantics. In other words, if someone wants to use the semantics of SemVer, they’d probably stick to the SemVer syntax as well to make that clear.

> (and 1.2.0 doesn’t convey any more information than 1.2 does) I thought the same, but some ticket comments in the SemVer Github repo reminded me that “1.2” can also be understood as all versions “1.2.x”. Then again, this ambiguity wouldn’t be a problem for the version in an info.rkt file, which is supposed to name a distinct version.

I’ve just re-run raco test --drdr drracket.rkt 10 times and it didn’t fail once… I’ll try something anyway

Can you try replacing line 149 (https://github.com/Metaxal/quickscript-test/blob/master/drracket.rkt#L149) with (poll-until (λ () (= 3 (send drr get-tab-count)))) and check if the test passes please?