cm0002@infosec.pub to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 day agoPride Versioninginfosec.pubimagemessage-square67fedilinkarrow-up1974
arrow-up1974imagePride Versioninginfosec.pubcm0002@infosec.pub to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 day agomessage-square67fedilink
minus-squareVibeSurgeon@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up61·23 hours 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-up3·10 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-squareanton@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up51·21 hours agoYou have done something, that it’s worth breaking backwards compatibility over.
minus-squareSaapas@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·19 hours agoYeah I just forgot how the old stuff worked
minus-squaresunbeam60@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up18·20 hours 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.
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.
You have done something, that it’s worth breaking backwards compatibility over.
Yeah I just forgot how the old stuff worked
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…