3 ms·

At the risk of sucking the fun out of a pretty funny joke, I think the underlying subtext is that established projects are failing to "grow up" -- i.e., that es

by dilap 5y ago

At the risk of sucking the fun out of a pretty funny joke, I think the underlying subtext is that established projects are failing to "grow up" -- i.e., that established, depended-on projects are hiding under the shield shield of a youthful 0.x version, when really, given how popular, old, and depended-on they are, they should embrace that responsibility and grow into 1.something. (Though, on the other hand, maybe it's more just honest signaling of expectations. "We are a 0.x project, we value developer speed and a clean code-base more than backcompat or stability for users. We will NEVER grow up!" We could call it Peter Pan versioning.)

eurasiantiger 5y ago
I’d hazard a guess that many of those projects are for environments that cannot guarantee stability, so the instability kind of rolls over to the projects themselves.
robertlagrant 5y ago
I think they just don't care about marketing. 1.0 being grown up is a marketing perspective. You could start at 2.0 and not be "grown up" in the slightest.
- inanutshellus 5y ago
  This is an unhelpful argument. It effectively says "meaning doesn't exist". I could also version my software "chicken.banana.guacamole" and be pissed that nobody understood that meant it was enterprise-and-production-ready. Point is, there's a convention and this satire website is pointing out obviously-wrong cases of mis-versioning.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    > It effectively says "meaning doesn't exist". No. It says that there's no universal agreement on this one thing, and while if you want to sell to certain people you should tailor your versioning appropriately, there's zero point in assuming a single interpretation. If I use CalVer some people who think there's only one way to do this may assume the product has had 2021 major version releases. That would be a silly assumption.
sjellis 5y ago
"Peter Pan versioning" This really should be the term for projects that are perpetually releasing 0.x versions. Maintainers are free to release their software under whatever terms that they wish, but if you actively encourage people to use your software and do not want to maintain backwards compatibility, then IMO, you should be very honest about that.

by dilap 5y ago

eurasiantiger 5y ago

I’d hazard a guess that many of those projects are for environments that cannot guarantee stability, so the instability kind of rolls over to the projects themselves.

robertlagrant 5y ago

I think they just don't care about marketing. 1.0 being grown up is a marketing perspective. You could start at 2.0 and not be "grown up" in the slightest.

inanutshellus 5y ago
This is an unhelpful argument. It effectively says "meaning doesn't exist". I could also version my software "chicken.banana.guacamole" and be pissed that nobody understood that meant it was enterprise-and-production-ready. Point is, there's a convention and this satire website is pointing out obviously-wrong cases of mis-versioning.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  > It effectively says "meaning doesn't exist". No. It says that there's no universal agreement on this one thing, and while if you want to sell to certain people you should tailor your versioning appropriately, there's zero point in assuming a single interpretation. If I use CalVer some people who think there's only one way to do this may assume the product has had 2021 major version releases. That would be a silly assumption.

sjellis 5y ago

"Peter Pan versioning" This really should be the term for projects that are perpetually releasing 0.x versions. Maintainers are free to release their software under whatever terms that they wish, but if you actively encourage people to use your software and do not want to maintain backwards compatibility, then IMO, you should be very honest about that.