3 ms·
How do you define a "bad thing"? The semver spec is quite clear about "even the tiniest backwards incompatible changes" (http://semver.org/#if-even-the-tiniest
by panic 10y ago
How do you define a "bad thing"? The semver spec is quite clear about "even the tiniest backwards incompatible changes" (http://semver.org/#if-even-the-tiniest-backwards-incompatible-changes-to-the-public-api-require-a-major-version-bump-wont-i-end-up-at-version-4200-very-rapidly http://semver.org/#if-even-the-tiniest-backwards-incompatibl...) requiring a major version bump.
- Manishearth 10y agoRust has its own definition of what it defines to be stable. Soundness fixes and bug fixes do not count, though as much as possible they will try to fix them in a way that breaks very little. http://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/10/30/Stability.html http://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/10/30/Stability.html
- lifthrasiir 10y agoCargo does not (yet) ensure that the library maintainer did follow the semver's doctrine.
- Argorak 10y agoBut there are people working on it. https://github.com/semantic-rs https://github.com/semantic-rs
- jjnoakes 10y agoIt may not be considered a backwards incompatible change to rust if it no longer compiles invalid code. If the code never worked correctly, but silently compiled, one would think a breaking change was welcomed.
- steveklabnik 10y agoSemver does not define what a "compatible" vs "incompatible" change means, though. Manish linked to how we define it, but SemVer specifically leaves that up to the project.