3 ms·

Semver is perfect for developers and libraries and helps a lot. In software for end users semver tells nothing most of the time.

deaddodo 3y ago
SemVer is more useful in Apps if you use feeling vs strict rules. A massive UI overhaul (but without breaking features) is almost definitely a major version bump but SemVer says it's a significant minor jump (5.0->5.5), at best. The problem is that SemVer was released for libraries, where it's rationale and rules make sense. But the abstract spirit of major.minor.patch makes more sense at an application level.
- accoil 3y ago
  If apps followed SemVer properly they should be bumping the major version for most UI changes (let alone overhauls), as they all break user workflows. If a button moves, you need to learn the new location. Shortcut changes? Tough luck, your muscle memory just deleted the last hour's progress. I don't think that's useful for users though. It's best to assume that any upgrade will break something for you, so maybe optimize for new features and bug fixes (if you even need any). Which is where other version schemes can be more helpful as they can give a greater scope of the number of changes (e.g CalVer tells you how out to date you are).
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    > If apps followed SemVer properly they should be bumping the major version for most UI changes (let alone overhauls), as they all break user workflows. This is just reiterating my entire point. People follow the rule/strict interpretation of the law and SemVer breaks, you should be following the spirit of the law.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - accoil 3y ago
      I didn't exactly intend to disagree with you, but I did get a bit combative there though, as I narrowed in a bit much when writing my response. I wanted to expand (and work out my thoughts) on > A massive UI overhaul (but without breaking features) is almost definitely a major version bump as I think effect of UI changes tends to be underestimated. Just because v1 & v2 both have a button to frobnicate doesn't mean that they are equal. If v1 had a big large frobnicator in the main screen, and v2 buried it in a menu, you could say that no feature was broken, but the user interaction is very different. That sort of change often gets rolled into a minor/patch bump, but it does break workflows. However if every change like that bumped the major version, it would be noise. There would be no way to judge the scale of the changes from v9 to v23 vs v14 to v16. I'm not sure if the spirit of the law of SemVer applies here though. The type of change is not important, only how much has changed. Bugs can be features.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Is the spirit just "major.minor.patch" and nothing else? If yes then I agree that it's a good guideline, but I don't think that's really "semver" at that point.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

deaddodo 3y ago

SemVer is more useful in Apps if you use feeling vs strict rules. A massive UI overhaul (but without breaking features) is almost definitely a major version bump but SemVer says it's a significant minor jump (5.0->5.5), at best. The problem is that SemVer was released for libraries, where it's rationale and rules make sense. But the abstract spirit of major.minor.patch makes more sense at an application level.

accoil 3y ago
If apps followed SemVer properly they should be bumping the major version for most UI changes (let alone overhauls), as they all break user workflows. If a button moves, you need to learn the new location. Shortcut changes? Tough luck, your muscle memory just deleted the last hour's progress. I don't think that's useful for users though. It's best to assume that any upgrade will break something for you, so maybe optimize for new features and bug fixes (if you even need any). Which is where other version schemes can be more helpful as they can give a greater scope of the number of changes (e.g CalVer tells you how out to date you are).
- deaddodo 3y ago
  > If apps followed SemVer properly they should be bumping the major version for most UI changes (let alone overhauls), as they all break user workflows. This is just reiterating my entire point. People follow the rule/strict interpretation of the law and SemVer breaks, you should be following the spirit of the law.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - accoil 3y ago
    I didn't exactly intend to disagree with you, but I did get a bit combative there though, as I narrowed in a bit much when writing my response. I wanted to expand (and work out my thoughts) on > A massive UI overhaul (but without breaking features) is almost definitely a major version bump as I think effect of UI changes tends to be underestimated. Just because v1 & v2 both have a button to frobnicate doesn't mean that they are equal. If v1 had a big large frobnicator in the main screen, and v2 buried it in a menu, you could say that no feature was broken, but the user interaction is very different. That sort of change often gets rolled into a minor/patch bump, but it does break workflows. However if every change like that bumped the major version, it would be noise. There would be no way to judge the scale of the changes from v9 to v23 vs v14 to v16. I'm not sure if the spirit of the law of SemVer applies here though. The type of change is not important, only how much has changed. Bugs can be features.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Is the spirit just "major.minor.patch" and nothing else? If yes then I agree that it's a good guideline, but I don't think that's really "semver" at that point.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]