However, even there it is work staying not too far out of step because it will eventually become necessary to update and then you find that you virtually have to start from scratch if you are too far behind.
That's why I always try to keep documentation of what I've installed, why and how. I will often try to automate that but, in reality, changes over time can be so drastic that it is easier to go back to the documentation and install by hand than it is to try and keep any automation script up-to-date - again, we are talking about home systems now, not commercial production systems.
The other advantage to the "by hand" approach is that it forces a clean install rather than carrying forward any cruft that is no longer needed. I tend to do this on my main PC as well, I do have a script to reinstall but generally only ever run a few parts of it on a new PC and it is designed to only tweak the settings and install core software that I know I will need.
Have we perhaps lost sight of the fact that NR is at version 0.2.x? I think that we have been spoiled by the tremendous stability of NR despite nearly continuous revision (and improvement).
Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable.
In other words, breaking changes can be made at any time for any reason. The good news is that a 1.0 release represents a commitment to future stability that a version 0.x.z absolutely does not.
I'm not sure I agree entirely with this from the Semantic Versioning FAQ, but it does seem to be time to go for 1.0.
If your software is being used in production, it should probably already be 1.0.0. If you have a stable API on which users have come to depend, you should be 1.0.0. If you're worrying a lot about backwards compatibility, you should probably already be 1.0.0.
Isn't NR really still in alpha versions? Since functionality is still being added? As once defined by IBM
So far, as being alpha as I see it, I think NR is very stable, personally I have had no issues at all, it just runs. Anyway, being an old fox, I will most likely wait for 1.1, never use a 1.0
Given that it has existed and been successful for quite a few years now, I hardly think that we can consider it beta let alone alpha. In terms of Node.js style versioning, the alpha/beta thing doesn't really apply anyway and many people (myself included), tend to add "-alpha1" or "beta1" etc to the end of the version string to indicate if the version should be considered alpha/beta quality.
A sub-1.0 version number generally just indicates that it still isn't very stable. Once you hit v1, there is an expectation that breaking changes will reduce in volume and that when they happen, you will continue to support the previous stable version at least for a while. An n and n-1 support model is very common and indeed is built into the contractual arrangements for many organisations including much of the UK's NHS.
I'm not up to speed with doc changes... I guess then my best plan is to wait for the September 1.0 release or at least beta 2, check out new documentation (wherever that is) and I'll do a write-up. Anything to help as NR is my favourite tool. I can see that response was written a while ago as it is already mid-August.
as my edit also points out.
