4 ms·
OP was suggesting not to have included backwards-incompatible changes, using deprecation warnings instead and branding it as a minor upgrade
by thinkloop 9y ago
OP was suggesting not to have included backwards-incompatible changes, using deprecation warnings instead and branding it as a minor upgrade
- coldtea 9y agoHence OP was suggesting not following the semantic versioning model. Why would they do that? To have extra work and to have to carry deprecated garbage and compatibility ports for a few releases more, instead of making a clean new version? Those that need compatibility can stick with 4 until they're ready.
- icebraining 9y agoThe semantic versioning model just says how you should update your version if you break compatibility, not that you can't avoid breaking compatibility. In fact, they suggest the opposite: "Before you completely remove the functionality in a new major release there should be at least one minor release that contains the deprecation so that users can smoothly transition to the new API." https://semver.org/#how-should-i-handle-deprecating-functionality https://semver.org/#how-should-i-handle-deprecating-function...
- arghwhat 9y agoEither my memory fails me, or the comment was edited... I don't recall responding to a comment that mentioned using deprecation warnings instead. :/
- kamac 9y agoSorry, I edited it right after posting it. Didn't think somebody could answer that fast :p