5 ms·

Is there a commitment from curl to use semver? If not, all the discussions about why the bump to v8 is void. We know a huge project that doesn't stick to semver

by jve 4y ago

Is there a commitment from curl to use semver? If not, all the discussions about why the bump to v8 is void. We know a huge project that doesn't stick to semver and update major version whenever they want: Linux Kernel. Ofcourse we wish everyone would use semver...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
reisse 4y ago
If Linux used semver, it'd never go past 1.x. Public kernel API never breaks, ever. So what's the point for semver?..
- its-summertime 4y ago
  Linux is more than just an API, its support of platforms changes over time for example
  - reisse 4y ago
    Sure, the point is that semver cares only about the API. Thus it's not really applicable to anything but userland libraries.
- bradfa 4y ago
  Linux kernel user facing APIs never break? It really depends on what you consider user facing. If you’ve ever relied on or considered sysfs to be a user facing API there have been numerous and severe breakages over time in the Linux kernel.
  - amarant 4y ago
    I think gp was referring to Linus Torvalds somewhat famous mantra to "never ever break userland, ever" Quite a few engineers has seen the sharper side of his tongue for not taking that mantra seriously enough
    - bradfa 4y ago
      Sure, he does rant about it, but the user facing APIs break constantly none the less.
      - Falell 4y ago
        A relevant example from yesterday: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjifBVf3ub0WWBXYg7JAao6V8coCdouseaButR0gi5xmg@mail.gmail.com/T/#u https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjifBVf3ub0WWBXYg7JAao6V8...
- dagw 4y ago
  If Linux used semver Solaris tried something like this for a while. While their competitors were releasing versions 4, 5 and 6 of their OS, Solaris was releasing version 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6. This made it look like they were just doing minor updates to Solaris, when they were in fact major new versions. Eventually they gave up and renamed solaris 2.7 to Solaris 7 just to keep up with the version numbering.
  - luispauloml 4y ago
    Not because of competition, but Emacs¹ and MiKTeX² also dropped the major number from their versioning schemes. ¹ https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/etc/NEWS.1-17#n1588 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/etc/NEWS.1-... ² https://github.com/MiKTeX/miktex/issues/554 https://github.com/MiKTeX/miktex/issues/554
    - Izkata 4y ago
      Java did it ages ago (1.5 and 1.6 became 5 and 6; I forget if 7 and 8 were also 1.7 and 1.8 originally)
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  > If Linux used semver, it'd never go past 1.x. Public kernel API never breaks, ever. Yep:) > So what's the point for semver?.. Exactly that: To trumpet it to the world - this project never broke compatibility, accept no substitutes.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    Except it did. Multiple times. And I vaguely recall one incident where they couldn’t revert although maybe I’m misremembering. > The Linux ABI definition is both fuzzy and controversial. Some ABI breaks are unavoidable. [1] [1] http://she-devel.com/Chaiken_LinuxABI.pdf http://she-devel.com/Chaiken_LinuxABI.pdf Ultimately it sounds like the policy is actually 0 “reallly bad ABI breaks” where “bad” is a subjective evaluation of how many bug reports they get or breaking something foundational (eg pulse audio). It’s just not possible to freeze the ABI because people may have found kernel bugs and worked around them and the fix for the kernel bug breaks the workaround. That’s what Hyrum’s law means and the Linux kernel doesn’t have a unique solution here. Don’t get me wrong. They do a fantastic job all things considered. But the “never break ABI” is more marketing than a hard and fast rule (but yes they generally get as close as is feasible to sticking to it)
    - SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
      ABI ≠ API. The ABI is a property of the program, the compiler (including options used during compilation), and the target platform. Semver only concerns itself with API, ABI isn't even a consideration there.
      - vlovich123 4y ago
        I doubt many practitioners of semver would agree that changing the behavior of a function in a breaking way would technically be a ok because it only covers the API signature. Semantic versioning frequently means “non-major version is ok to blindly update and not only will the code still compile it’ll also behave the same way at runtime”, branding notwithstanding. “Public api never breaks” as OP posted, for example, is a reference to the Linux ABI policy

by jve 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

reisse 4y ago

If Linux used semver, it'd never go past 1.x. Public kernel API never breaks, ever. So what's the point for semver?..

its-summertime 4y ago
Linux is more than just an API, its support of platforms changes over time for example
- reisse 4y ago
  Sure, the point is that semver cares only about the API. Thus it's not really applicable to anything but userland libraries.
bradfa 4y ago
Linux kernel user facing APIs never break? It really depends on what you consider user facing. If you’ve ever relied on or considered sysfs to be a user facing API there have been numerous and severe breakages over time in the Linux kernel.
- amarant 4y ago
  I think gp was referring to Linus Torvalds somewhat famous mantra to "never ever break userland, ever" Quite a few engineers has seen the sharper side of his tongue for not taking that mantra seriously enough
  - bradfa 4y ago
    Sure, he does rant about it, but the user facing APIs break constantly none the less.
    - Falell 4y ago
      A relevant example from yesterday: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjifBVf3ub0WWBXYg7JAao6V8coCdouseaButR0gi5xmg@mail.gmail.com/T/#u https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjifBVf3ub0WWBXYg7JAao6V8...
dagw 4y ago
If Linux used semver Solaris tried something like this for a while. While their competitors were releasing versions 4, 5 and 6 of their OS, Solaris was releasing version 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6. This made it look like they were just doing minor updates to Solaris, when they were in fact major new versions. Eventually they gave up and renamed solaris 2.7 to Solaris 7 just to keep up with the version numbering.
- luispauloml 4y ago
  Not because of competition, but Emacs¹ and MiKTeX² also dropped the major number from their versioning schemes. ¹ https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/etc/NEWS.1-17#n1588 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/etc/NEWS.1-... ² https://github.com/MiKTeX/miktex/issues/554 https://github.com/MiKTeX/miktex/issues/554
  - Izkata 4y ago
    Java did it ages ago (1.5 and 1.6 became 5 and 6; I forget if 7 and 8 were also 1.7 and 1.8 originally)
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
> If Linux used semver, it'd never go past 1.x. Public kernel API never breaks, ever. Yep:) > So what's the point for semver?.. Exactly that: To trumpet it to the world - this project never broke compatibility, accept no substitutes.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  Except it did. Multiple times. And I vaguely recall one incident where they couldn’t revert although maybe I’m misremembering. > The Linux ABI definition is both fuzzy and controversial. Some ABI breaks are unavoidable. [1] [1] http://she-devel.com/Chaiken_LinuxABI.pdf http://she-devel.com/Chaiken_LinuxABI.pdf Ultimately it sounds like the policy is actually 0 “reallly bad ABI breaks” where “bad” is a subjective evaluation of how many bug reports they get or breaking something foundational (eg pulse audio). It’s just not possible to freeze the ABI because people may have found kernel bugs and worked around them and the fix for the kernel bug breaks the workaround. That’s what Hyrum’s law means and the Linux kernel doesn’t have a unique solution here. Don’t get me wrong. They do a fantastic job all things considered. But the “never break ABI” is more marketing than a hard and fast rule (but yes they generally get as close as is feasible to sticking to it)
  - SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
    ABI ≠ API. The ABI is a property of the program, the compiler (including options used during compilation), and the target platform. Semver only concerns itself with API, ABI isn't even a consideration there.
    - vlovich123 4y ago
      I doubt many practitioners of semver would agree that changing the behavior of a function in a breaking way would technically be a ok because it only covers the API signature. Semantic versioning frequently means “non-major version is ok to blindly update and not only will the code still compile it’ll also behave the same way at runtime”, branding notwithstanding. “Public api never breaks” as OP posted, for example, is a reference to the Linux ABI policy