AZ-400 Question 104
Single answerYour development team maintains multiple shared libraries used by various internal applications. You release new features at the end of each quarter and sometimes introduce breaking changes that require a major version increment. However, senior leadership wants a straightforward way to identify the release timeframe from the library version itself. Which single versioning approach best meets these needs?
- A
Use strict Semantic Versioning (SemVer) for every release cycle without incorporating dates.
- B
Adopt standard date-based versioning (CalVer) and ignore the concept of major/minor increments.
- C
Combine SemVer for major/minor/patch increments while integrating the date of release within a build metadata or pre-release label.
- D
Issue the release date as the patch version number and only use major increments when forced to by policy.
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: C
Explanation
Microsoft DevOps best practices recommend maintaining clear versioning conventions that highlight breaking changes as well as release cycles. Semantic Versioning (SemVer) helps inform users about incompatibility risks, while date-based (CalVer) markers make it easy to identify when a release occurred. By blending the two�employing SemVer� major/minor/patch increments and adding date information in a pre-release or metadata segment�you balance clarity for both dependency management and release timelines. For reference, see official guidance on Semantic Versioning (https://semver.org/) and versioning strategies in Microsoft Docs (https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/devops/pipelines/library/versioning-strategies).
- A. Incorrect.
Option 1: Incorrect. While SemVer is good for communicating breaking changes, it does not incorporate release date information, which is specifically requested by leadership.
- B. Incorrect.
Option 2: Incorrect. CalVer simplifies date-based identification but lacks the clarity needed for conveying breaking changes, which is a primary concern when managing shared libraries.
- C. Correct.
Option 3: Correct. Combining SemVer with date information (e.g., using a pre-release label such as '1.2.0-2023.10') captures both the semantic meaning (major/minor/patch) and the release timeframe. This meets leadership desires and maintains clarity about breaking changes.
- D. Incorrect.
Option 4: Incorrect. Using the release date as a patch version can become confusing (e.g., '1.2.202310'), as it conflates patch increments with date identifiers and fails to cleanly distinguish truly minor fixes from major or minor SemVer changes.