4 ms·
First impression is that I wouldn't go near it until it settles down a bit — it was on v1.7 in May and now on version 3 already. Great that it's under active d
by another-dave 5y ago
First impression is that I wouldn't go near it until it settles down a bit — it was on v1.7 in May and now on version 3 already.
Great that it's under active development, but changes to my scripts are infrequent and slow. I wouldn't want to be touching an old script on a server somewhere saying "How do I do X in ZX again?" and everything I find online is now for v15 while I'm still on v3.
Maybe if it had plans around a LTS version I'd take a look at that stage.
To be honest though I like doing things in bash. You can get pretty far & it's 100% portable. If something's too complicated for bash it's probably time it's not just a simple CLI script anymore, in my experience.
- SevenSigs 5y ago> First impression is that I wouldn't go near it until it settles down a bit — it was on v1.7 in May and now on version 3 already. Would you feel better if they called version three v1.9 instead?
- FinalBriefing 5y agoThe major version bumps imply breaking changes. Two major versions within a few months implies I might have to refactor my code every couple of months to stay up to date, or face a buildup of tech debt if I want to take advantage of a new feature in the future. If there are no breaking changes, then I would feel better if they called it v1.9.
- staticassertion 5y agoGiven that 3 and 1.9 have a completely different semantic meaning, they might.
- SevenSigs 5y agothat depends on the developer(s).. didn't check in this case
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Stampo00 5y agoIf you wrote your script against v1.7 and now they're on v3, you can still run your script. The v1.7 source and binary haven't disappeared. It's still available and work exactly the same as when you wrote your script.