4 ms·
Many OSS projects were and still are pre 1.0 for years. I think, it's a sign of hybris if a project owner goes 1.0 too soon.
by k__ 5y ago
Many OSS projects were and still are pre 1.0 for years.
I think, it's a sign of hybris if a project owner goes 1.0 too soon.
- julianlam 5y ago... hubris? I think that's a bit much. We went v1 once we decided our software was ready for other people to use. It meant we'd ensure compatibility via upgrade scripts, and it meant we wouldn't do irresponsible things like tell users "this release requires you to drop your database and start over"
- k__ 5y agoI think, that's the main problem with SemVer. Everyone tries to merge the major version with some kind of nebulous "readiness". While it should just be a number related to technical aspects of the software.
- superjan 5y agoAnd I think that is the right way to think about it. I think people stay on 0 because they think they have to implement all ideas and edgecases before it you can call it 1.0. You can also get stuck on 1.x releases in the same way (notably Java).
- mytailorisrich 5y agoIf you have a set of working, useful features, however small as long as they part of your core product, and you release to the public then you have your v1.0. IMHO, if you stay pre 1.0 for years across many releases it means you have too wide a scope for what v1.0 should be. Essentially, your MVP is v1.0 since that the first viable product you release. But what sometimes happens is that people imagine v1.0 as being the full vision with everything and so they never really reach it. And of course sometimes it seems that there is no sensible explanation at all for why a product is still pre 1.0 to the point of being ripe for satire, indeed (and ZeroVer is really on point the way it satirises this!).