how does this compare to other libs?

[adamralph]

how does this compare to other libs?

[adamralph]

@Styxxy thanks for asking.

I evaluated both GitTools.GitVersion and Nerdbank.GitVersion before starting this, but neither of them works in the way that I want for my projects.

The TL;DR is that MinVer is simpler. How it works pretty much captures everything. At least, as currently designed, since it's still a work in progress. There is no NuGet package available yet.

How does this project compare to GitTools.GitVersion ... ?

To some degree, it's a subset of what GitTools.GitVersion does. It's much simpler and doesn't do nearly as much. Some of the differences:

• No dependency on a specific branching pattern.
• No inference of version from branch names.
• No inference of version from YAML config.
• No inference of version from commit messages.
• No inference of version from CI build server env vars.
• No creation of metadata code artifacts.
• No automatic fetching of tags, etc. from the repo.
• One package instead of a series of packages.
• No support for AssemblyInfo.cs

How does this project compare to ... Nerdbank.GitVersion?

It's different approach, and again, simpler (some of the differences are already listed under my previous answer for GitTools.GitVersion).

Essentially, Nerdbank.GitVersion wraps up the injection of the version into the build process from a config file. That means versions are controlled by commits to that config file. MinVer works purely on tags. That means it doesn't need some of the types of things that come with Nerdbank.GitVersion such as the config file bootstrapper, and it means the version is controlled independently of the commits. E.g. you can tag a commit as a release candidate, build it and deploy. After some time, if the release candidate has no bugs, you can tag the same commit as RTM, build it and deploy.

Also, Nerdbank.GitVersion uses the git height for the patch version, and that's not what I want.

[adamralph]

@Styxxy FYI I raised #227 based on this conversation. Thanks again for raising this question.

[Styxxy]

Thanks for the clarification.

Might be interesting to document this ;-) .

[adamralph]

@Styxxy yeah, I was thinking the same. 🙂

I think it's worth getting that into an FAQ when the design is proven, and at least a beta or RC package is available.

Thanks again for raising this.