"Release" calver, and assign it a (cal)version

[BenWiederhake]

I just tried to link to semver 2.0.0, zerover 0.0.1, and calver … well which version exactly? There are no calver versions, so it's not clear which one I'm referring to!

Feel free to just close this issue if you think this is silly, but I think it's actually reasonable to expect a versioning scheme to adhere to itself.

[mahmoud]

Hey Ben! I definitely see where you're coming from, and it's not entirely silly. I had the same thought when writing the initial document, and there's technically a version in the graphic on the about page: 16.6.

Ultimately I decided the world didn't need a new prescriptive version standard. Instead, calver.org focuses on describing an extant phenomenon. Of course, others had other ideas: https://pypi.org/search/?q=calver

We could somehow draw a line around the vocabulary part of CalVer and version that. The problem is:

1. When we find more folks out in the world using calendar elements in their versioning (weeks, day of year, etc.), does it limit our ability to document that?
2. Do we have to update our version to reflect something that was already happening?
3. Do we need to have both versions side-by-side on the site?

I could see an argument made, if that's the argument you're trying to make. What would you do with two or more versions of CalVer?