> Article is being disingenuous here. The original author absolutely intended to call this a violation of the semver spec, with all of the connotations that bri

> Article is being disingenuous here. The original author absolutely intended to call this a violation of the semver spec, with all of the connotations that brings. This is assuming intent that wasn't there. At the time, I did not know the author's view was so extreme that they view bumping patch on api additions is equivelant to bumping minor on api removals. I was giving the author the benefit of the doubt. I still feel discussing whether the same language for describing both is appropriate as I assume there are enough of us unaware or that don't care about the patch handling that it it is misleading to equate them. > The rest of the article answers that: if you bump minor on all API additions, you allow others to specify a caret version with a minor version number, as the spec says they should be able to. The spec says nothing of version requirements. If you are trying to say "you can accept any patch", thats not true. The semver spec says you can add functionality so long as the API is unchanged. This is setting aside relying on bug fixes which is frequent enough.