3 ms·

I think you conflate marketing with technical change. You would like to announce a new major version with fanfare, bumping a version number. A programmer want

I think you conflate marketing with technical change. You would like to announce a new major version with fanfare, bumping a version number. A programmer wants to be sure that his piece of software continues working if there has only been a minor version bump of a library he is using. Did you read the reasoning of Russ Cox in respect to vgo, versioning and the module system in general? It reads very plausible and understandable. Just because so many peopele interpret semver in their sense instead what it really means shouldn't prevent the Go core team to try to do it right.

grey-area 6y ago
I think you conflate marketing with technical change. There are multiple reasons given above why strict semantic versioning is not used in real-world software, that is a reductive summary of one of them. Yes, I've read those articles a while back when they were written. In a very real sense, a consumer can never be sure that software keeps running properly if a library changes in any way without extensive checks. Real-world loose semantic versioning is a promise, not a proof, and it works better that way. I don't personally think the current go proposal is terrible or sucks, but I do think it could be improved, and it'll be improved by listening to how people use versions.