3 ms·
Whenever I see software under v1, I see developers who are afraid of commitment. There’s nothing special about v1, there’s no reason to keep a useless zero for
by corbezzoli 3y ago
Whenever I see software under v1, I see developers who are afraid of commitment.
There’s nothing special about v1, there’s no reason to keep a useless zero for a decade. At some point you gotta realize you’ve been using the minor version as a major so that v0.39.0 is just v39.0.
Apple recently realized the same thing when they stopped releasing 10.x versions and just did 11.0 after 20 years.
- sdwr 3y ago[flagged]
- ewoodrich 3y agoThe Apple case seems way more about OS X being the well advertised brand of the operating system vs the idea that it was because of superstition about incrementing the major version number.
- HWR_14 3y agoOS X was a huge breaking change from MacOS 9. Advertising OS 11 would have caused many people to wonder if all their software was about to break. Which is exactly what happened when Big Sur was released. Apple using semantic versioning is a huge win.
- csnover 3y agoApple don’t use semantic versioning. macOS 10.15 broke all 32-bit software. If that’s not an incompatible version update, I don’t know what is.
- bhaak 3y agoThere's nothing special about v1 either. So you can just increment the minor version and would have the same effect as if you were just using the major version. As you said yourself. As long as releases happen I don't think you can say the devs are afraid of commitment. Note that this only applies to self contained software. For libraries SemVer makes sense but other types of software usually don't need it. For my projects I usually just show the major version to the common user and internally SemVer is used for debug information and compatibility signalling (where this applies).