On 19/06/2018 09:06, Norbert Hartl wrote:
We can agree that there is no hard rule on versionning, do we? But I try to follow the following guidelines (delta my own interpretation that adds some subjectivity :P) - Major Version will change when we break backwards compatibility - Minor Version will change when new features are added - Otherwise, patch version will change.
There is only one hard rule for me and that is knowing about the risk to take. So if we take the patch version it should only include important bug fixes and nothing else. I would argue that only #864, #862, #858 and #854 qualify for such a patch if at all. Not sure about #860 because the title is not specific enough. The point for me is that I want my project to rely on something like 1.1.x because I donât want anything to change that breaks my software. And I can tell you that most developers underestimate the side-effects of changes.Â
+1 to this. Only by introducing a new feature you MUST increment the minor version.
Now, this is the kind of subjective topic that starts a flamewar, but Iâd prefer to use my time on somewhat else ^^.
You may not like to talk about these things but I do. And you should listen. I have no use for an environment where people only care about coding new cool stuff. If it would be like this I would quit all my pharo businesses, move to mainstream and would use pharo only for hobbyist projects because that would be the level that can be met.
I've used commercial Smalltalks before Pharo and VW for the last year, and although they're _ages_ behind some of the "modern" stuff in Pharo, they never compromise version semantics regarding these things. And if I give it a second thought I can point to other open-source non-smalltak big projects/libraries which are also cool but also follow strict versioning, and being bigger the cascade effect of changing artifacts semantics is way bigger. Please take this comment with a grain of salt, it's not a critic of all the work done in Iceberg or other projects, but it seems that these kind of "meta" (aka "PM", "strategy", or anything non-coding) discussions are avoided or muted, and they shouldn't. Regards, -- Esteban A. Maringolo