[nothrabannosir]

So major versions are, to me, almost more of a cause for concern these days. My first thought is typically "Oh no, what part of my stack is going to break now? How much time will I spend tracking down the fix?"

Isn't that exactly the point of semver?

And, assuming things will break at some point,* isn't that great? Now you know when to expect it.

Semver doesn't influence design decisions of a project's lifetime. It describes them.

* fair assumption, unless you're dealing with software which literally never breaks backwards compatibility.

[andrewstuart2]

Yeah, that's definitely the point of SemVer. The only point I'm (and presumably gedy is) making is that a major version no longer feels like Christmas morning, but rather akin to "see me in my office tomorrow morning." Okay, not quite that bad, but in the same vein.

SemVer is great and helpful and I wouldn't choose anything else currently, but it also lacks the builtin PR that old-school major versions seemed to have, where major version bumps usually meant you could get excited about exploring new major features. There's nothing special about a minor SemVer bump that says "new major features have been introduced." The spec only asserts that minor means new features.

That is, there's no obvious way to know that 1.1 introduced only one new method for checking status, while 1.2 introduced a new magic() method that finishes your work for you and makes all your dreams come true. :-P

[nothrabannosir]

Great point. In retrospect, that should have been clear to me from your comment. Sorry for ruining the thread :/

[andrewstuart2]

Eh, no harm no foul. :-) I could have been more clear, if there was still room for misunderstanding, and it gave me the chance to mentally flesh out my thoughts a bit better as well. :-)