4 ms·

> You should still try Great, you agree then that this tool is useful because it will help you try to predict whether a change will break compatibility. I can

> You should still try Great, you agree then that this tool is useful because it will help you try to predict whether a change will break compatibility. I can barely follow the rest of your comment. Semver is useful in, at least, a decentralized set of actors trying to minimally cooperate with one another by using a short number to communicate coarse but important information with respect to compatibility. Guess what that describes? A FOSS software ecosystem. So... > Semver is neither of those things except in a very specific circumstance that almost nobody has. Nope. I would say FOSS is pretty popular.

BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
> Great, you agree then that this tool is useful because it will help you try to predict whether a change will break compatibility. No. I guess you didn't actually read what I said, and decided instead to construct a strawman by carving very few words out of it completely ignoring the rest of the words around them. > I can barely follow the rest of your comment. Ah ha. > Semver is useful in, at least, a decentralized set of actors trying to minimally cooperate with one another by using a short number to communicate coarse but important information with respect to compatibility. It's not any more useful than a system with only either date/incremental (this is newer than that) or major.minor (I promise that this change breaks, and that other change might also break but I hope not) versioning except for the one case I mentioned, which FOSS decentralization has absolutely nothing to do with.
- obi1kenobi 3y ago
  cargo-semver-checks checks almost entirely only major.minor versioning issues. Rust's flavor of semver doesn't impose or demand any particular rules about what is a minor and what is a patch version. So I'm a bit confused about the position you seem to be arguing against, when the tool and the entire ecosystem are doing exactly what you (AFAICT) consider a good idea.
  - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
    > Rust's flavor of semver doesn't... Semver.org says: Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 Summary Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes MINOR version when you add functionality in a backward compatible manner PATCH version when you make backward compatible bug fixes Three fields. If you're saying that cargo-semver-checks doesn't need three fields, then you're saying that it doesn't benefit from semver as defined by semver.org.
    - carbotaniuman 3y ago
      I don't really follow this comments. It's a bit too rambly and circuitous for me to follow, and I gave it a few tries, but I do admit I'm not the best at reading walls of text. From what I can tell, you're trying to argue that semver is useless while also saying that not following semver means that you don't get any benefits, but that just doesn't seem like a proper argument, so I'm surely misinterpreting. I think SemVer is a social construct, but that most of the time we can predict what changes will be breaking. We may get it wrong of course, but that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and not try.
      - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
        I added a tldr to the top of my original comment. I hope it helps.
    - conradludgate 3y ago
      cargo-semver-checks checks for breaking changes. minor and patch versions are defined to be backwards compatible and therefore not breaking. So why would it distinguish. For tooling it's very hard to detect between a feature and a bug fix so it's almost impossible to automate that series of checks
      - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
        > minor and patch versions are defined to be backwards compatible and therefore not breaking. So why would it distinguish. Indeed, why? And yet semver itself does, which is senseless.

BugsJustFindMe 3y ago

> Great, you agree then that this tool is useful because it will help you try to predict whether a change will break compatibility. No. I guess you didn't actually read what I said, and decided instead to construct a strawman by carving very few words out of it completely ignoring the rest of the words around them. > I can barely follow the rest of your comment. Ah ha. > Semver is useful in, at least, a decentralized set of actors trying to minimally cooperate with one another by using a short number to communicate coarse but important information with respect to compatibility. It's not any more useful than a system with only either date/incremental (this is newer than that) or major.minor (I promise that this change breaks, and that other change might also break but I hope not) versioning except for the one case I mentioned, which FOSS decentralization has absolutely nothing to do with.

obi1kenobi 3y ago
cargo-semver-checks checks almost entirely only major.minor versioning issues. Rust's flavor of semver doesn't impose or demand any particular rules about what is a minor and what is a patch version. So I'm a bit confused about the position you seem to be arguing against, when the tool and the entire ecosystem are doing exactly what you (AFAICT) consider a good idea.
- BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
  > Rust's flavor of semver doesn't... Semver.org says: Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 Summary Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes MINOR version when you add functionality in a backward compatible manner PATCH version when you make backward compatible bug fixes Three fields. If you're saying that cargo-semver-checks doesn't need three fields, then you're saying that it doesn't benefit from semver as defined by semver.org.
  - carbotaniuman 3y ago
    I don't really follow this comments. It's a bit too rambly and circuitous for me to follow, and I gave it a few tries, but I do admit I'm not the best at reading walls of text. From what I can tell, you're trying to argue that semver is useless while also saying that not following semver means that you don't get any benefits, but that just doesn't seem like a proper argument, so I'm surely misinterpreting. I think SemVer is a social construct, but that most of the time we can predict what changes will be breaking. We may get it wrong of course, but that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and not try.
    - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
      I added a tldr to the top of my original comment. I hope it helps.
  - conradludgate 3y ago
    cargo-semver-checks checks for breaking changes. minor and patch versions are defined to be backwards compatible and therefore not breaking. So why would it distinguish. For tooling it's very hard to detect between a feature and a bug fix so it's almost impossible to automate that series of checks
    - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
      > minor and patch versions are defined to be backwards compatible and therefore not breaking. So why would it distinguish. Indeed, why? And yet semver itself does, which is senseless.