6 ms·

> and hints at backwards compatibility. To me it communicates no commitment to backwards compatibility, i.e. no semantic versioning. This might be enforceable

> and hints at backwards compatibility. To me it communicates no commitment to backwards compatibility, i.e. no semantic versioning. This might be enforceable if one is Apple, but doesn't sound good for an open-source platform.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
To me it communicates a commitment that they'll never have any significant breaking change ever again without changing their name, fork style.
- willtim 6y ago
  An insignificant breaking change is still a breaking change; and over time they build up. This may explain why so many developers have been unhappy with GTK3.
- npteljes 6y ago
  Yeah like how Firefox got rid of XUL extensions in version 57.
geofft 6y ago
What would semantic versioning for a UI even mean? What's the API promise?
- xorcist 6y ago
  It could mean that all applications still run unmodified and can show all the dialog boxes they used to. That may not sound like much of a promise, but it is. Applications written for GNOME 2.x won't run under 3.x.
- aembleton 6y ago
  x.y.z x would increment on the removal of a feature y would increment on the addition or change of a feature z would increment on a bug fix