Didn't expect this to pop up here - please ignore for now. We are preparing official semantic versioning of llama.cpp and it's almost ready, but not quite.
Yeah, I think they are strays added by GitHub Actions, they don't line up with the actual version that's tracked inside the source code, which indicates v0.20.1:
```
Add a "Create and push git tag" step to the release job, right before
the "Create release" step. The tag is created with git tag and pushed
with the deploy key already configured by the Clone step, instead of
relying on the Releases API (action-create-release) to create it as a
side effect.
The tag is lightweight, matching all existing b release tags.
The step is idempotent: if the tag already exists (e.g. on a re-run),
creation and push are skipped.
```
I think they just haven't configured the TAG part of that properly yet, so it created an incorrect tag the first run.
The github release pages for this project have me wondering who it is for. There are multiple releases per day. Also the Linux release binaries do not compile for CUDA.
It's more reasonable for a lot of people to just follow master and build from source.
I thought I would add a comment asking the maintainers to consider not shipping major version zero, since it basically makes semantic versioning worthless and using SemVer and ignoring this advice basically suggests one wasn't reading it to begin with, but then I asked myself, "Why bother?"
No one seems to take it seriously, and why would my voice matter anyway? I think https://0ver.org shows us the industry doesn't really care about software versioning.
Hell, just drop the pretense and tell people to stick to commit hashes and dates.
Didn't expect this to pop up here - please ignore for now. We are preparing official semantic versioning of llama.cpp and it's almost ready, but not quite.
More info about the versioning process is here: https://github.com/ggml-org/ggml/discussions/1579
That's really encouraging news, the per-commit versioning has been tricky to follow. Happy to see it!
what's the significance of this? There is also a v0.1.1 from 4 hours ago, but these v0.1.x one's are on the releases tab https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/releases
seems like stray tags?
Yeah, I think they are strays added by GitHub Actions, they don't line up with the actual version that's tracked inside the source code, which indicates v0.20.1:
https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/commit/cea66f4c5a17255...
2 releases back:
``` Add a "Create and push git tag" step to the release job, right before the "Create release" step. The tag is created with git tag and pushed with the deploy key already configured by the Clone step, instead of relying on the Releases API (action-create-release) to create it as a side effect.
The tag is lightweight, matching all existing b release tags. The step is idempotent: if the tag already exists (e.g. on a re-run), creation and push are skipped. ```
I think they just haven't configured the TAG part of that properly yet, so it created an incorrect tag the first run.
The github release pages for this project have me wondering who it is for. There are multiple releases per day. Also the Linux release binaries do not compile for CUDA.
It's more reasonable for a lot of people to just follow master and build from source.
I've got a script that checks out and builds the latest tag
https://github.com/brian-learns/llama_cpp/blob/main/update.s...
I thought I would add a comment asking the maintainers to consider not shipping major version zero, since it basically makes semantic versioning worthless and using SemVer and ignoring this advice basically suggests one wasn't reading it to begin with, but then I asked myself, "Why bother?"
No one seems to take it seriously, and why would my voice matter anyway? I think https://0ver.org shows us the industry doesn't really care about software versioning.
Hell, just drop the pretense and tell people to stick to commit hashes and dates.