3 ms·
This is a very confused post. The title is correct. It calls out that individuals are abusing semver, rather than calling out semver itself. Then it goes on t
by lucideer 6y ago
This is a very confused post.
The title is correct. It calls out that individuals are abusing semver, rather than calling out semver itself.
Then it goes on to list examples of such abuse. Fine.
Then, it concludes by proposing to REPLACE SEMVER!!!??
At no point has the article called out any problems with semver itself, other than people use it incorrectly.
Even if only 5% of people use semver correctly, that's still 5% of uses that give more beneficial information than this proposed alternative.
- lucideer 6y agoFollow up point: if something is used incorrectly more often than not, perhaps the conclusion one could draw is that the UX is wrong, and we should invent a versioning system that is harder to abuse. This author has not done this.
- skrebbel 6y agoYou read over the part where the author recommends semver where appropriate.
- majewsky 6y agoMy guess is that if it were a reasoned argument for when to use semver and when not to use it, it wouldn't be controversial enough to make the front page. The first third of the article is insightful. The rest is mostly bait.