cm0002@infosec.pub to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 day agoPride Versioninginfosec.pubimagemessage-square68fedilinkarrow-up1991arrow-down19
arrow-up1982arrow-down1imagePride Versioninginfosec.pubcm0002@infosec.pub to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 day agomessage-square68fedilink
minus-squareVibeSurgeon@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up62arrow-down2·1 day 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-squareanton@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up52·1 day agoYou have done something, that it’s worth breaking backwards compatibility over.
minus-squareSaapas@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·23 hours agoYeah I just forgot how the old stuff worked
minus-squareDonkter@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·14 hours 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-up18·1 day 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.
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.
You have done something, that it’s worth breaking backwards compatibility over.
Yeah I just forgot how the old stuff worked
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.
Python agrees.
Sir…