You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
2 points

It was made to do so, but failed from the start exactly because humans got involved. semver’s ideals can only happen when tooling generates the version number, not humans.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

How can a machine decide if something is a patch, minor, or major release? I guess a major release could be defined by a comprehensive unit test suite breaking, but the others are very much something humans should decide.

Imo, the solution is that people need to be less afraid of major release bumps. Do it frequently and it’s not likely to cause issues downstream.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It is quite simple conceptually to decide. Simply examine all the functions of the API between two versions. If the signatures are equivalent, increment the patch version. If there are new signatures, but the existing ones are the same, it’s a minor version. If any function signatures change, it’s a major version.

Then you also need to examine trait impls and such but the basic idea is the same.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That oversimplifies and misses a lot of edge cases, such as:

  • change the meaning of an existing parameter - e.g. an Integer timeout changes from seconds to milliseconds
  • dependency changes, and this package exposes exposes types from that dependency
  • internal refactor changes the order of execution of existing uses (say, a scheduler change in an async library, or event order in a GUI library)

Each of those would be, imo, a breaking change, but an automated semver tool would probably mark them as patch releases. I could come up with more examples, but hopefully the point is clear.

Maybe it’s correct 90% of the time, but the last 10% of the time can be really impactful. I think there should be less sigma against major releases. If in doubt, mark it as a major release.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

@sugar_in_your_tea If you’re interested, I recommend looking at how Elm does it. Elm has automatic semver enforcement in its package system.

The long and the short is
missing stuff: major change
new stuff: minor change
patch: internal implementation change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I gave a more thorough response with examples to the other user that replied (link on my instance here, but basically there are cases where you could break someone’s code with a patch release.

I’m completely fine with using tools to help decide what versions to assign, but in general developers should not hesitate to increment the major version if there’s any doubt.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Rust

!rust@programming.dev

Create post

Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.

Wormhole

!performance@programming.dev

Credits
  • The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)

Community stats

  • 392

    Monthly active users

  • 836

    Posts

  • 3.8K

    Comments