# What's up with dev in the version number?

**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/whats-up-with-dev-in-the-version-number/273483
**Category:** Support
**Created:** [August 1, 2023, 1:16pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/whats-up-with-dev-in-the-version-number/273483 "2023-08-01T13:16:38Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![david](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/david/32/157490_2.png) [@david](https://meta.discourse.org/u/david)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2023, 2:18pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/whats-up-with-dev-in-the-version-number/273483/4 "2023-08-01T14:18:01Z")

</div>

Here’s a summary of the changes:

> [@From Discourse 3.2: adding -dev suffix to beta versions under active development](https://meta.discourse.org/t/starting-in-discourse-3-2-were-introducing-dev-to-in-development-beta-versions/273490):
>
> On tests-passed, starting with 3.2.0.beta1-dev, Discourse core version numbers will include a -dev suffix to indicate that they’re not the final ‘release’ versions of a beta. This suffix doesn’t appear in the UI, so this is a technicality which will have no impact on the vast majority of people. For the technical details, see below: In the beta series for Discourse 3.1 and below, our versioning strategy was to ‘release’ a beta, and then leave the version number in tests-passed exactly the sam…

> [@pfaffman](#):
>
> I think it broke my code

These new version numbers are still valid semver, and are parseable by `Gem::Version.new`, so that’s the best way to compare them.

If you were trying to parse `version.rb` manually, then the relevant change might be [this one](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/6222a6033592b646fae22c06984157fb64c9c767) which restructured the file to support this new suffix.

If you can share the relevant code, then I’m sure we can help to figure it out.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/whats-up-with-dev-in-the-version-number/273483)._