From 65f8d1c247a54bd562d5ae375cc0b97c803e9ba9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Felix Kiss Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 02:46:15 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Update why-are-unbound-version-constraints-a-bad-idea.md Minor text improvement --- doc/faqs/why-are-unbound-version-constraints-a-bad-idea.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/faqs/why-are-unbound-version-constraints-a-bad-idea.md b/doc/faqs/why-are-unbound-version-constraints-a-bad-idea.md index 183403948..56d152c82 100644 --- a/doc/faqs/why-are-unbound-version-constraints-a-bad-idea.md +++ b/doc/faqs/why-are-unbound-version-constraints-a-bad-idea.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ compatible with the new major version of your dependency. For example instead of using `>=3.4` you should use `~3.4` which allows all versions up to `3.999` but does not include `4.0` and above. The `~` operator -works very well with libraries follow [semantic versioning](http://semver.org). +works very well with libraries following [semantic versioning](http://semver.org). **Note:** As a package maintainer, you can make the life of your users easier by providing an [alias version](../articles/aliases.md) for your development