3 ms·

> I'm not saying major version bumps should be avoided at all costs - but they should be avoided at /some/ costs. We should aspire to design our APIs well enoug

> I'm not saying major version bumps should be avoided at all costs - but they should be avoided at /some/ costs. We should aspire to design our APIs well enough that we don't have to later break them and force our users to upgrade. That's clearly impossible to always hold to, which is why we have major version bumps - but major version bumps should be rare and apologetic, not careless and frequent. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If the tweet had said "breaking changes should not be careless and frequent", this post would not exist and those replies would not exist because... it's so painfully obvious! You really think people are arguing against that? That is simply not what the original comment says! That's not even what you said at the start of your own comment just now! It is not the same as saying "you got the API wrong"! - And I don't mean that in a semantical "haha gotcha" way, I mean they literally are two different statements and one is wrong, and one is so obvious it's literally part of the standard! I mean have you actually read the document that defines SemVer?! https://semver.org/ https://semver.org/ It literally says in 10 different ways that you should not be breaking your API often! That if you are either you need to stay below 1.0.0 or use a separate branch. - It's like by saying (or supporting) a viewpoint so extreme it's straight up wrong, you position yourself to then retroactively take an extremely moderate position in a way that makes you sound super clever... Except you needed to support/say something super unclever as a spring board. And anyone who's gone through enough if these kinds of platitudes will see that immediately and call you out on the unclever thing you said. That's why you see such strong opposition, not because a senior ASF contributor needs you of all people to tell them that major version bumps in semver, aka breaking changes, shouldn't be careless and frequent! Do you not see what you're doing as patronizing at all? Luring people in with a conversation about a downright bad take (even if it's someone else's) then browbeating them with a super obvious non-statement that would never have been worth the conversation in the first place? It's the worst form of ego-stroking if I'm being real for a second. Don't do that.

simonw 5y ago
If you want to start a conversation about something and maybe help grow people's understanding of it, using pithy, semi-comedic statements is a great way to do it. Will's original "FAILS.FEATURES.BUGS" tweet, https://twitter.com/willmcgugan/status/1423678688802058244 https://twitter.com/willmcgugan/status/1423678688802058244 has been retweeted 256 times and got 855 likes. I included "major version bumps should be rare and apologetic, not careless and frequent" in this tweet: https://twitter.com/simonw/status/1424050624388206600 https://twitter.com/simonw/status/1424050624388206600 - and it got 1 retweet and 12 likes. I don't think this discussion was patronizing. I think that Will helped a lot of people understand a concept that they may have missed. Fundamentally our disagreement here seems to be about whether "major version numbers are [...] a permanent reminder of how many times you got the API wrong" means the same thing as "major version bumps should be rare and apologetic". I think the first is a slight exaggeration of the second, made for impact - and that the response to it showed that exaggerating it had the desired effect.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  > If you want to start a conversation about something and maybe help grow people's understanding of it, using pithy, semi-comedic statements is a great way to do it. I've said in maybe 20 different ways how this isn't pithy or semi-comedic > I included "major version bumps should be rare and apologetic, not careless and frequent" in this tweet: https://twitter.com/simonw/status/1424050624388206600 https://twitter.com/simonw/status/1424050624388206600 - and it got 1 retweet and 12 likes. You've made my point splendidly. Do you remember how this thread started? With me saying the gray area doesn't get you engagement? How people pretend to be backing the extreme takes because of that? Now lo and behold, "oh well obviously they never held that view in the first place, it was just pithy and semi-comedic" > I don't think this discussion was patronizing. I think that Will helped a lot of people understand a concept that they may have missed. You acting like the catalyst for the conversation was a "pithy semi-comedic" way of saying "major version bumps should be rare and apologetic, not careless and frequent" is extremely patronizing. It's an insult to people's intelligence! It wasn't, it was doing exactly what I said above. Saying something whacky and wrong so that when people start to engage with it you can come back with a much more moderate vanilla point that's no one disagreed with in the first place so that audience the first statement collected gets to see you make <very correct statement>. > Fundamentally our disagreement here seems to be about whether "major version numbers are [...] a permanent reminder of how many times you got the API wrong" means the same thing as "major version bumps should be rare and apologetic". I think the first is a slight exaggeration of the second, made for impact - and that the response to it showed that exaggerating it had the desired effect. They are literally tangential statements. One literally does not follow the other. That's why I said before, this isn't some academic "well achtually technically they use different words" type of deal, they are not the same! But you know what, hey maybe I should assume positive intent. Maybe you actually don't realize how non-sensical it sounds to pretend that one follows the other. So let's leave it at that.

simonw 5y ago

If you want to start a conversation about something and maybe help grow people's understanding of it, using pithy, semi-comedic statements is a great way to do it. Will's original "FAILS.FEATURES.BUGS" tweet, https://twitter.com/willmcgugan/status/1423678688802058244 https://twitter.com/willmcgugan/status/1423678688802058244 has been retweeted 256 times and got 855 likes. I included "major version bumps should be rare and apologetic, not careless and frequent" in this tweet: https://twitter.com/simonw/status/1424050624388206600 https://twitter.com/simonw/status/1424050624388206600 - and it got 1 retweet and 12 likes. I don't think this discussion was patronizing. I think that Will helped a lot of people understand a concept that they may have missed. Fundamentally our disagreement here seems to be about whether "major version numbers are [...] a permanent reminder of how many times you got the API wrong" means the same thing as "major version bumps should be rare and apologetic". I think the first is a slight exaggeration of the second, made for impact - and that the response to it showed that exaggerating it had the desired effect.

BoorishBears 5y ago
> If you want to start a conversation about something and maybe help grow people's understanding of it, using pithy, semi-comedic statements is a great way to do it. I've said in maybe 20 different ways how this isn't pithy or semi-comedic > I included "major version bumps should be rare and apologetic, not careless and frequent" in this tweet: https://twitter.com/simonw/status/1424050624388206600 https://twitter.com/simonw/status/1424050624388206600 - and it got 1 retweet and 12 likes. You've made my point splendidly. Do you remember how this thread started? With me saying the gray area doesn't get you engagement? How people pretend to be backing the extreme takes because of that? Now lo and behold, "oh well obviously they never held that view in the first place, it was just pithy and semi-comedic" > I don't think this discussion was patronizing. I think that Will helped a lot of people understand a concept that they may have missed. You acting like the catalyst for the conversation was a "pithy semi-comedic" way of saying "major version bumps should be rare and apologetic, not careless and frequent" is extremely patronizing. It's an insult to people's intelligence! It wasn't, it was doing exactly what I said above. Saying something whacky and wrong so that when people start to engage with it you can come back with a much more moderate vanilla point that's no one disagreed with in the first place so that audience the first statement collected gets to see you make <very correct statement>. > Fundamentally our disagreement here seems to be about whether "major version numbers are [...] a permanent reminder of how many times you got the API wrong" means the same thing as "major version bumps should be rare and apologetic". I think the first is a slight exaggeration of the second, made for impact - and that the response to it showed that exaggerating it had the desired effect. They are literally tangential statements. One literally does not follow the other. That's why I said before, this isn't some academic "well achtually technically they use different words" type of deal, they are not the same! But you know what, hey maybe I should assume positive intent. Maybe you actually don't realize how non-sensical it sounds to pretend that one follows the other. So let's leave it at that.