3 ms·

> In particular, what the signal says is, "We aren't yet ready to think about or support the needs of someone who's trying to use this in production." > Which,

> In particular, what the signal says is, "We aren't yet ready to think about or support the needs of someone who's trying to use this in production." > Which, if the project is also then pitching the software as production-ready, is a terrible mixed message. Maintainers really should pick one story and stick with it. Yes, that's true, but you've got to realize that these messages are often coming from different teams. Versions are more likely to come from engineers, whereas pitches are more likely to come from sales. As an engineer, version numbers are one of the few tools I have for telling the truth when sales is lying. Engineers generally don't want to promise stability that isn't fully-formed, because if a valuable enough client starts using it, then we end up supporting some horrible half-baked interface until they decide to upgrade. In that context, when you see version numbers disagreeing with marketing, don't point the finger at semantic versioning as "refusing to tag a 1.0.0 release". They're the ones telling you the truth. Point the finger at marketing. In a larger sense, the sooner you start viewing all marketing as untrustworthy and basing your decisions on evidence instead, the happier you'll be. Version numbers are a small signal. Actual trial periods and getting to use the software should be the real deciding factor. And don't make the mistake of turning a trial period into a commitment without actually evaluating whether the software does what you want it to.

mumblemumble 6y ago
It's kind of hard to rest things like a huge chunk of the world's computing infrastructure basing itself on OpenSSL long before the product put out its 1.0 release on the usual "don't trust marketing" finger-tutting. Did OpenSSL even have a marketing team back in the early 2000s?
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  Sure, hype isn't necessarily based on marketing. That's why there's the word "often" in my previous post. I think in the case of OpenSSL, there was a huge need for what OpenSSL was doing which justified a lot of people taking a calculated risk to use it. I'll concede in that case that the risk may have actually even been justified. That same logic doesn't apply to blahblah.io's "revolutionary" 0.x.y packages on npm or pip, or the bleeding-edge SaaS of the week.

mumblemumble 6y ago

It's kind of hard to rest things like a huge chunk of the world's computing infrastructure basing itself on OpenSSL long before the product put out its 1.0 release on the usual "don't trust marketing" finger-tutting. Did OpenSSL even have a marketing team back in the early 2000s?

kerkeslager 6y ago
Sure, hype isn't necessarily based on marketing. That's why there's the word "often" in my previous post. I think in the case of OpenSSL, there was a huge need for what OpenSSL was doing which justified a lot of people taking a calculated risk to use it. I'll concede in that case that the risk may have actually even been justified. That same logic doesn't apply to blahblah.io's "revolutionary" 0.x.y packages on npm or pip, or the bleeding-edge SaaS of the week.