This is cute, but I find OpenSSL's version policy way funnier. Here I quote it verbatim from https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Versioning:

    *Major releases* that change one/both of the first two digits, which can break compatibility with previous versions

    *Minor releases* that change the last digit, e.g. 1.1.0 vs. 1.1.1, can and are likely to contain new features, but in a way that does not break binary compatibility. This means that an application compiled and dynamically linked with 1.1.0 does not need to be recompiled when the shared library is updated to 1.1.1. It should be noted that some features are transparent to the application such as the maximum negotiated TLS version and cipher suites, performance improvements and so on. There is no need to recompile applications to benefit from these features.

    *Letter releases,* such as 1.0.2a, exclusively contain bug and security fixes and no new features.

This is arguably the most important piece of software where people need to watch out for updates carefully, but its release version policy is a bit loony.

I very much prefer Gregorian versioning. Also lets you instantly know whether that nice app you’ve just found mentioned somewhere is still being updated or abandoned for 5 years already.

Finally, a versioning scheme that's rooted in reality

This is kinda what we’ve all been doing all along!

This makes more sense than it looks. semver is a lie because every change is a breaking change (Hyrum’s law)

Majors are the shame versions. Your interface was not well thought and you need to break backwards compatibility

Love it!