8 ms·

In semantic versioning parlance those would all be considered "patch" releases, not a "minor" release. The minor version segment in a semantic version is the 2n

In semantic versioning parlance those would all be considered "patch" releases, not a "minor" release. The minor version segment in a semantic version is the 2nd number, so most people would consider the next "minor release" for MySQL to be 8.1.0. If following the guidance set out at https://semver.org https://semver.org, a patch release wouldn't add any new functionality, it would just address bugs in a backwards compatible way. A minor version would introduce new functionality in a way that doesn't violate backwards compatibility. Quickly scanning the release notes for some of the MySQL 8 versions, they seem to be generally sticking to this; most of the versions fixed some bugs or unintuitive behavior, but it doesn't look like much new functionality has been introduced since 8.0.4, the last release candidate for the major version bump.

PeterZaitsev 5y ago
MySQL does not follow semantic version and there have been features introduced in minor released including some incompatible changes as you can see for example https://dev.mysql.com/doc/relnotes/mysql/8.0/en/news-8-0-24.html https://dev.mysql.com/doc/relnotes/mysql/8.0/en/news-8-0-24....
- Tostino 5y ago
  Yeah, no thank you. I'll stick with Postgres.
- fastball 5y ago
  That's still a patch release not a minor release.
  - bonzini 5y ago
    If it does not follow semantic versions, it is just a third-level version number. It's like Linux's 2.6.x series.
evanelias 5y ago
Many major new features have been introduced in 8.0 point releases. Some examples: * 8.0.12 added INSTANT algorithm for adding new columns to a table * 8.0.13 added DEFAULT expressions (column default values may now be any arbitrary expression, not just a constant) * 8.0.16 added CHECK constraints * 8.0.17 added the CLONE plugin for rapid physical copying of a db * 8.0.23 added INVISIBLE columns (excluded from SELECT *) These are just a handful among many others... basically MySQL 8 does not follow SemVer at all, nor does it claim to. (Although personally as a tool developer in the mysql ecosystem, I selfishly wish they did!)
- dijit 5y ago
  That’s pretty scary, isn’t it?
  - evanelias 5y ago
    No, since MySQL 8 doesn't ever claim to use SemVer. They have an explicitly stated policy of including features in point releases. Why would it be "pretty scary" that a non-SemVer software doesn't use SemVer? SemVer is an arbitrary versioning scheme, not a universal standard. It's the operator's responsibility to understand the versioning scheme prior to upgrading.
    - dijit 5y ago
      I’m not saying semver is a universal standard but this is _wildly_ different to everything else. Nobody expects defaults to change between patch/minor versions. This is another example of how MySQL does not give a flying F about the footguns it leaves lying around. Putting the onus on the user is not reasonable; especially in a world where we’re trying to reduce toil or get rid of ops completely.
      - evanelias 5y ago
        In another subthread, you're (justifiably) unhappy with how they didn't change the strict-mode default soon enough; but here you're upset that some defaults changed too fast? Also my comment above in this subthread wasn't even about defaults. I only mentioned some features added, and you responded saying it's scary and then talking about defaults? You don't like MySQL, I get it. Regardless of reasons, I don't think your view will change, so why enter every HN thread about MySQL just to repetitively bash MySQL? What's the purpose of this?
umanwizard 5y ago
SemVer is a relatively recent proposal that the vast majority of software does not follow. Calling the three parts of a three-part version “major”, “minor” and “patch” is a SemVer thing, not a universal standard.
- 101011 5y ago
  Worth calling out here that SemVer has been around for a decade now, so "recent" is relative
  - rtsil 5y ago
    For some of us, that is recent.
- JimDabell 5y ago
  SemVer did not introduce major / minor / patch, that was standard usage in free and open source software for decades beforehand. Example from 20 years ago: > The most popular version numbering scheme stems from the <major>.<minor>.<patchlevel> scheme — https://ask.slashdot.org/story/01/01/05/0054230/version-numbering-schemes https://ask.slashdot.org/story/01/01/05/0054230/version-numb... Example from 1997: > Python versions are numbered A.B.C or A.B. A is the major version number -- it is only incremented for major changes in functionality or source structure. B is the minor version number, incremented for less earth-shattering changes to a release. C is the patchlevel -- it is incremented for each new patch release. — https://web.archive.org/web/19970501012343/http://www.python.org:80/doc/FAQ.html#1.12 https://web.archive.org/web/19970501012343/http://www.python...
  - umanwizard 5y ago
    Fair enough, you’re right that it’s more widespread than just SemVer (though IMO still not an ironclad standard)
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    There's also Windows with it's A.B.C.D or major.minor.patch.build version scheme. Not sure how far back that goes, but it clearly predates semver as well.
unethical_ban 5y ago
Sure, but you're assuming they follow that standard simply because they have x.y.z.
mumblemumble 5y ago
I'm coming to realize that semver is a lot like scrum. Everyone knows about it, lots of people like it, plenty of people want to use it, nobody seems able to move past arguing about how it's supposed to work and actually get a working implementation off the ground.

PeterZaitsev 5y ago

MySQL does not follow semantic version and there have been features introduced in minor released including some incompatible changes as you can see for example https://dev.mysql.com/doc/relnotes/mysql/8.0/en/news-8-0-24.html https://dev.mysql.com/doc/relnotes/mysql/8.0/en/news-8-0-24....

Tostino 5y ago
Yeah, no thank you. I'll stick with Postgres.
fastball 5y ago
That's still a patch release not a minor release.
- bonzini 5y ago
  If it does not follow semantic versions, it is just a third-level version number. It's like Linux's 2.6.x series.

evanelias 5y ago

Many major new features have been introduced in 8.0 point releases. Some examples: * 8.0.12 added INSTANT algorithm for adding new columns to a table * 8.0.13 added DEFAULT expressions (column default values may now be any arbitrary expression, not just a constant) * 8.0.16 added CHECK constraints * 8.0.17 added the CLONE plugin for rapid physical copying of a db * 8.0.23 added INVISIBLE columns (excluded from SELECT *) These are just a handful among many others... basically MySQL 8 does not follow SemVer at all, nor does it claim to. (Although personally as a tool developer in the mysql ecosystem, I selfishly wish they did!)

dijit 5y ago
That’s pretty scary, isn’t it?
- evanelias 5y ago
  No, since MySQL 8 doesn't ever claim to use SemVer. They have an explicitly stated policy of including features in point releases. Why would it be "pretty scary" that a non-SemVer software doesn't use SemVer? SemVer is an arbitrary versioning scheme, not a universal standard. It's the operator's responsibility to understand the versioning scheme prior to upgrading.
  - dijit 5y ago
    I’m not saying semver is a universal standard but this is _wildly_ different to everything else. Nobody expects defaults to change between patch/minor versions. This is another example of how MySQL does not give a flying F about the footguns it leaves lying around. Putting the onus on the user is not reasonable; especially in a world where we’re trying to reduce toil or get rid of ops completely.
    - evanelias 5y ago
      In another subthread, you're (justifiably) unhappy with how they didn't change the strict-mode default soon enough; but here you're upset that some defaults changed too fast? Also my comment above in this subthread wasn't even about defaults. I only mentioned some features added, and you responded saying it's scary and then talking about defaults? You don't like MySQL, I get it. Regardless of reasons, I don't think your view will change, so why enter every HN thread about MySQL just to repetitively bash MySQL? What's the purpose of this?

umanwizard 5y ago

SemVer is a relatively recent proposal that the vast majority of software does not follow. Calling the three parts of a three-part version “major”, “minor” and “patch” is a SemVer thing, not a universal standard.

101011 5y ago
Worth calling out here that SemVer has been around for a decade now, so "recent" is relative
- rtsil 5y ago
  For some of us, that is recent.
JimDabell 5y ago
SemVer did not introduce major / minor / patch, that was standard usage in free and open source software for decades beforehand. Example from 20 years ago: > The most popular version numbering scheme stems from the <major>.<minor>.<patchlevel> scheme — https://ask.slashdot.org/story/01/01/05/0054230/version-numbering-schemes https://ask.slashdot.org/story/01/01/05/0054230/version-numb... Example from 1997: > Python versions are numbered A.B.C or A.B. A is the major version number -- it is only incremented for major changes in functionality or source structure. B is the minor version number, incremented for less earth-shattering changes to a release. C is the patchlevel -- it is incremented for each new patch release. — https://web.archive.org/web/19970501012343/http://www.python.org:80/doc/FAQ.html#1.12 https://web.archive.org/web/19970501012343/http://www.python...
- umanwizard 5y ago
  Fair enough, you’re right that it’s more widespread than just SemVer (though IMO still not an ironclad standard)
- wongarsu 5y ago
  There's also Windows with it's A.B.C.D or major.minor.patch.build version scheme. Not sure how far back that goes, but it clearly predates semver as well.

unethical_ban 5y ago

Sure, but you're assuming they follow that standard simply because they have x.y.z.

mumblemumble 5y ago

I'm coming to realize that semver is a lot like scrum. Everyone knows about it, lots of people like it, plenty of people want to use it, nobody seems able to move past arguing about how it's supposed to work and actually get a working implementation off the ground.