I'm done please review and merge to main.

Is there any reason to have 4 new interfaces IContinuousDeliveryVersionCalculator, IContinuousDeploymentVersionCalculator, IManualDeploymentVersionCalculator, and ITrunkBasedVersionCalculator that have the same method with the same signature and to not share a IVersionCalculator?

If we take in consideration your suggestion regarding

public enum VersioningMode
{
    ManuallyDeployment, // previously ContinuousDelivery
    ContinuousDelivery, // previously ContinuousDeployment
    ContinuousDeployment, // new
    Trunkbased // previously Mainline??
}

I would rather have a IVersionCalculator that has the VersioningMode field and each implementation of this interfaces will set the appropriate VersioningMode andd then in the NextVersionCalculator I would inject all implementations and depending on the VersioningMode it will be selected the appropriate one. Thoughts?

Is there any reason to have 4 new interfaces IContinuousDeliveryVersionCalculator, IContinuousDeploymentVersionCalculator, IManualDeploymentVersionCalculator, and ITrunkBasedVersionCalculator that have the same method with the same signature and to not share a IVersionCalculator?

If we take in consideration your suggestion regarding

public enum VersioningMode
{
    ManuallyDeployment, // previously ContinuousDelivery
    ContinuousDelivery, // previously ContinuousDeployment
    ContinuousDeployment, // new
    Trunkbased // previously Mainline??
}

I would rather have a IVersionCalculator that has the VersioningMode field and each implementation of this interfaces will set the appropriate VersioningMode andd then in the NextVersionCalculator I would inject all implementations and depending on the VersioningMode it will be selected the appropriate one. Thoughts?

Yep good point. At this moment I have separated the behavior which not aligns with the VersioningMode enumerator. But if we are going to decide to change it so we have a one to one relation then yes I think your idea is great.

Do you have something like this in mind?

public interface IVersionCalculator
{
    VersioningMode VersioningMode { get; }

    SemanticVersion Calculate(NextVersion nextVersion);
}

public IVersionCalculator GetSpecificVersionCalculator(VersioningMode versioningMode)
{
    return _serviceProvider.GetServices<IVersionCalculator>().Single(
        element => element.VersioningMode == versioningMode
    );
}

Is there any reason to have 4 new interfaces IContinuousDeliveryVersionCalculator, IContinuousDeploymentVersionCalculator, IManualDeploymentVersionCalculator, and ITrunkBasedVersionCalculator that have the same method with the same signature and to not share a IVersionCalculator?
If we take in consideration your suggestion regarding

public enum VersioningMode
{
    ManuallyDeployment, // previously ContinuousDelivery
    ContinuousDelivery, // previously ContinuousDeployment
    ContinuousDeployment, // new
    Trunkbased // previously Mainline??
}

I would rather have a IVersionCalculator that has the VersioningMode field and each implementation of this interfaces will set the appropriate VersioningMode andd then in the NextVersionCalculator I would inject all implementations and depending on the VersioningMode it will be selected the appropriate one. Thoughts?

Yep good point. At this moment I have separated the behavior which not aligns with the VersioningMode enumerator. But if we are going to decide to change it so we have a one to one relation then yes I think your idea is great.

Do you have something like this in mind?

public interface IVersionCalculator
{
    VersioningMode VersioningMode { get; }

    SemanticVersion Calculate(NextVersion nextVersion);
}

public IVersionCalculator GetSpecificVersionCalculator(VersioningMode versioningMode)
{
    return _serviceProvider.GetServices<IVersionCalculator>().Single(
        element => element.VersioningMode == versioningMode
    );
}

Exactly, in this case we don't need that many interfaces for the all the modes, and we have only the implementations and one interface

Exactly, in this case we don't need that many interfaces for the all the modes, and we have only the implementations and one interface

So what do you think @HHobeck should we make those changes to the VersionMode, or put that change into another PR?

Exactly, in this case we don't need that many interfaces for the all the modes, and we have only the implementations and one interface

Agreed.

Exactly, in this case we don't need that many interfaces for the all the modes, and we have only the implementations and one interface

So what do you think @HHobeck should we make those changes to the VersionMode, or put that change into another PR?

I think it is better to do this in a separate PR. You mentioned already to do this after the beta.2 release. Which is fine with me.

Also we need to discuss the naming. IMO the naming of VersioningMode is missleading. Maybe a better name might be DeploymentMode. What do you think? In addition what do you like more Trunkbased or Mainline?

public enum DeploymentMode
{
    ManuallyDeployment, // previously ContinuousDelivery
    ContinuousDelivery, // previously ContinuousDeployment
    ContinuousDeployment, // new
    Trunkbased // previously Mainline??
}

@asbjornu do you agree with this PR to be merged?

Thank you @HHobeck for your contribution!

This is great stuff. The only thing I'm a bit wary about is the change from 1.0.1+46 to 1.0.1-46 unless label is set to null. Not because the change doesn't make sense, I think it's a good default, but because it's a breaking change. However, I think we should test this change out in the community and see what feedback we get.

@asbjornu I've been trying to make it so it doesn't output a prerelease number on my side, but setting "label" to null under GitVersion.yml doesn't work. This markdown file is also mentioning a similar solution, but still I can't figure it out: https://github.com/GitTools/GitVersion/blob/main/BREAKING_CHANGES.md.

Go that when applying the change:

"{BranchName}" is appended inside the "FullSemVer" variable.

When removing the label, I got that:

My configuration so far:

Would it be possible to help me so that I have for the variable FullSemVer, the value '1.0.0+37' instead of '1.0.0-37'?

My current gitversion:

Thanks in advance!

Thank you @HHobeck for your contribution!