DUB 0.9.22 released

[tn via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 22 September 2014 at 09:33:52 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> If you can think of any potentially important and especially 
> backwards-incompatible changes/additions, please mention them 
> (ideally as GitHub tickets), so that we can include them before 
> the 1.0.0 release.

What is the recommended way of versioning bindings? If the 
binding of the target library 1.2.3 is versioned as 1.2.3 and a 
bug is fixed in the binding (no change in the target library), 
how should the new version of the binding for target version 
1.2.3 be versioned? Using 1.2.4 is not an option because it 
potentially collides with the binding for the next version of the 
target.

Derelict [1] has solved this problem in a "clever" way, which 
allows leaving the least significant number for the binding 
[2][3]. Take for example the bindings for SDL [4]: Bindings for 
target version 2.0.1 are versioned as 1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and so 
on. Correspondingly, for target version 2.0.2, the binding 
versions are 1.2.0, 1.2.1 and so on. I guess, that for for target 
2.1.0, the binging would be versioned 2.0.0, 2.0.1, and so on. I 
think that this is quite confusing. Is there a better way?

[1] https://github.com/DerelictOrg
[2] http://dblog.aldacron.net/derelict-help/using-derelict/
[3] http://dblog.aldacron.net/important-derelictsdl2-updates/
[4] http://code.dlang.org/packages/derelict-sdl2