This is the worst possible name for this concept. "semver" is jargon we already know: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, where each of those "meanings" is up to the library au

This is the worst possible name for this concept. "semver" is jargon we already know: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, where each of those "meanings" is up to the library author's whim. From a library consumer's point of view, "semver" is BREAKING?.BREAKING?.BREAKING? because one person's "security patch" is another person's "breaking change". What this author is advocating already has a name: "backwards compatibility". Like "semver", it's also imperfectly implemented, but unlike semver it's at least not undecidable. For example you can enforce (at the package manager level) that new versions are append-only additions to older versions. > choosing a new name at every backwards-incompatible change is difficult and unhelpful to users My position is that keeping an old name (and changing its meaning) is much, much worse!