Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> A vast majority of breaking changes is mechanically fixable, and we all know how it is beneficial. We should embrace a method to reduce perceived breaking changes, not a method to point out possible breaking changes.

These seem like entirely distinct goals that should be pursued separately. Yes, from the perspective of a library consumer, any breaking change is a problem. But from the perspective of a library author, there's a crucial distinction between breaking changes that I intended to make and breaking changes that I didn't intend to make. The tool in the OP is for use by library authors, with the goal of eliminating unintentional breaking changes, and thereby reducing the number of breaking changes that my users are forced to endure. And what you're asking for is a tool to be used by library consumers, in order to mitigate intentional breaking changes. Both these tools can exist, and both benefit (at least marginally) from semver. Semver isn't a panacea, it's just the simplest possible foundation to communicate ideas about versioning. It's entirely welcome to invent concepts beyond semver to perform even more advanced communication.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: