(doc) Versionning Recommendations could be clearer

[captainjs]

Hi,
On this page:
https://chocolatey.org/docs/create-packages#versioning-recommendations

The versioning could be clearer.

1. It could contain a reference example to the code in the nuspec file, like:
   0.0.x
   It could also show bad examples with explanations like:
   Prod.123.x (bad because it's not only numbers)
   11.1 (allegedly bad because it's two digits, it should be only one)

2. It could be clear on what is accepted like only numbers, or something like:
   [0-9].[0-9].[0-9].[123456] (or whatever is correct). Also, having a clear sentence would be good, like only numbers separated by a dot, or something.

3. It could specify the maximum number of characters it can contains (apparently it's 20?)
   Ex, to avoid having 1.2.3.4567891011121314...

4. The explanation about segments could be consolidated, it's not always clear what is inside a segment (probably the steps above should help clarify).

Cheers!

[ferventcoder]

IS there anything we could reuse from the nuspec that is generated when you run choco new <pkgId>?

[captainjs]

IS there anything we could reuse from the nuspec that is generated when you run choco new <pkgId>?

Hi, I read the nuspec automatically generated and I don't see anything which can be reused.
It says something "version should match as possible with underlying software...is a version a prerelease blablabla...note that unstable versions like 0.0.1 can be considered as a release version....<VERSION> _REPLACE_</VERSION>.
It's not helping to understand what needs to be configured.

[ferventcoder]

@captainjs thanks for the feedback. So it sounds like we likely need to do some work in both areas.