4 ms·
> The original poster insisted on using the phrase "violation of semver" to describe this scenario. It would be helpful in understanding what this post is abou
by ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
> The original poster insisted on using the phrase "violation of semver" to describe this scenario.
It would be helpful in understanding what this post is about if this would have been linked somewhere in it.
- bayindirh 5y agoI think the whole blog post is floating in the air, because it's detached from all surrounding discussion and core event itself. It reads like a rambling at this point.
- ChrisSD 5y agohttps://users.rust-lang.org/t/psa-please-specify-precise-dependency-versions-in-cargo-toml/71277 https://users.rust-lang.org/t/psa-please-specify-precise-dep... Essentially there are a few popular Rust libraries that add functions in patch versions (or have done so in the past). This makes it necessary for users of that library to include the patch number when specifying the minimal version that they need because they can't assume an earlier patch will include all the functions they use. The original forum poster said such libraries were in "violation" of the semver.org spec. This blog post disagrees on using the term "violation" because this is a minor issue (no pun intended... or was it).
- epage 5y agoI wanted to keep the focus on the idea and not have this be viewed as an attack on the person. However, the person has gone on to more publicly talk about their views (the linked users post) so its more clear who I was responding to so I'm willing to post the original discussion (look for the collapsed posts): https://github.com/killercup/cargo-edit/issues/126 https://github.com/killercup/cargo-edit/issues/126