cm0002@infosec.pub to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 18 days agoPride Versioninginfosec.pubimagemessage-square65linkfedilinkarrow-up11
arrow-up11imagePride Versioninginfosec.pubcm0002@infosec.pub to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 18 days agomessage-square65linkfedilink
minus-squareVibeSurgeon@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·18 days agoUnder semantic versioning, you should really be ashamed of bumping the major number, since this means you went and broke backwards compatibility in some way.
minus-squareDonkter@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·17 days agoBump the first number when you update to a version that breaks compatibility. Bump the second number when you make a change that people might want to revert back from Bump the third number for bug fixes.
minus-squaresunbeam60@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up0·18 days agoExcept from 0.x.x to 1.0.0. That one means you’re committed to keeping the API/format stable. At least how I think about it.
minus-squareanton@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up0·18 days agoYou have done something, that it’s worth breaking backwards compatibility over.
minus-squareSaapas@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·18 days agoYeah I just forgot how the old stuff worked
Under semantic versioning, you should really be ashamed of bumping the major number, since this means you went and broke backwards compatibility in some way.
Bump the first number when you update to a version that breaks compatibility.
Bump the second number when you make a change that people might want to revert back from
Bump the third number for bug fixes.
Except from 0.x.x to 1.0.0. That one means you’re committed to keeping the API/format stable. At least how I think about it.
You have done something, that it’s worth breaking backwards compatibility over.
Yeah I just forgot how the old stuff worked
Python agrees.