[cbdfghh]

> I like the idea of Semantic Versioning, but it does cause problems where if I'm going to do several breaking releases one after another I have to keep bumping the major version, and I hate that. I've actually put off doing breaking changes simply because I didn't want to bump the major version number, but I don't like that either.

When you're doing backend/API things (where breaking changes matter), I sure hope you think a million times before making breaking changes.

Can you imagine if someone had to go through millions of lines of his code to make sure nothing broke, then, a week later, you broke his code again?

[thomaslee]

I'm not the parent, but I sort of like the idea at first glance. I mean, it's a fine line: if I have "v1.0.0" and I break one API in one module, I'm compelled to release "v2.0.0" even though v2.0.0 is otherwise entirely compatible with v1 -- it's not as big of an upgrade as the version numbering system would imply.

But if I go and drastically change things in a way likely to impact many users, that gets a brand new version number too. So v1.0.0 -> v2.0.0 only really communicates "something might break".

The scheme proposed by the parent would be able to communicate "expect many things to break because I refactored the heck out of stuff to fix some long-standing design deficiencies" -- though admittedly when to bump that first version number is likely to be a subjective topic. :)

Perhaps this isn't as valuable as it seems at a first glance, but if anybody's tried something like this I for one would be interested to hear about it.

[pixel_fcker]

A piece of software I'm familiar with does this Arch.Major.Minor.Patch.

The Arch number represents a "generation" of the software that represents a significant overhaul where the architecture changes and input files that were generated for previous versions are not likely to work.

Major represents breaking API compatibility, so users who write plugins for the software will need to recompile and possibly change their code (but maybe not depending on what changed).

Minor and Patch are what you'd expect from semver.

This works extremely well from my experience.

[lisivka]

Arch is part of name then.

[humanrebar]

The point of making backwards compatibility the first number is because the subtle changes need attention drawn to them. There's little risk of people accidentally using things in a broken way when projects are renamed. It's about clarity of technical communication. There are lots of ways to communicate big direction changes, including changing the look and feel of something, adding code words (WD Caviar Green), putting out a big publicity push (v32 is a whole new game!), and so on.

[eridius]

If you're using a proper type-safe compiled language then most "subtle" breaking changes can't possibly be missed because your code won't compile anymore (assuming you used that API to begin with). You don't need a major version number to call attention to the fact that one parameter of one method changed from a boolean flag to a set of options, anyone who's using that method will find that out pretty quickly.

The main reason semver is done the way it is is so you can do things like have package managers automatically pick the latest compatible version, since incompatibilities are denoted by the major version number. That's why I'd prefer major.breaking.minor.patch, because you can still have the package manager automatically detect compatible versions, but you don't end up in the crazy land of releasing a library at v27.

[cbdfghh]

> If you're using a proper type-safe compiled language then most "subtle" breaking changes can't possibly be missed because your code won't compile anymore (assuming you used that API to begin with). You don't need a major version number to call attention to the fact that one parameter of one method changed from a boolean flag to a set of options, anyone who's using that method will find that out pretty quickly.

1. What if it's a dll, .so? You upgrade and find out that your program is broken.

2. Sometimes the API stays the same but the code behind the API changes a result (for example, secure_hash goes from MD5 to bcrypt)?

3. What about non-type safe languages (like HTML or JS, so things like Firefox or Chrome)?

The point is that you should avoid breaking other people's code if you can. What happened if that removal of one function in that one module costs me a full years of work?

Sometimes you can't help yourself. PHP had register_globals. Some people were able to use it safely (initialize all variables before use), but PHP rightfully realized the security implications and disabled it. However, it broke code, and a lot of it.

These are things you should think about and heavily before breaking code. It may be one line for you, but for all the millions of people who use your library it could be thousands of man-years of work.

[eridius]

> What if it's a dll, .so? You upgrade and find out that your program is broken.

If it's not backwards-compatible then it needs to bump the appropriate version number (in my proposal, that would be the second dotted component). So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

> * Sometimes the API stays the same but the code behind the API changes a result (for example, secure_hash goes from MD5 to bcrypt)?*

If it's a non-backwards-compatible behavioral change then maybe you need to design your API better such that this kind of change is expressed in the API. After all, if you expect anybody to ever upgrade to your new bcrypt version, you need to provide some path for people to still work with their older MD5 hashes anyway.

> What about non-type safe languages (like HTML or JS, so things like Firefox or Chrome)?

Not something I particularly care about. Though it doesn't really matter anyway; even if you think the breaking change number is too "subtle", anyone who's manually upgrading to a new version instead of letting their package manager do it should already be prepared to deal with breaking changes, because if there aren't breaking changes then their package manager should have been happy to upgrade without any manual intervention.

> The point is that you should avoid breaking other people's code if you can. What happened if that removal of one function in that one module costs me a full years of work?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. My suggestion was just about changing the format of the version number, and has no bearing whatsoever on the actual breaking changes you do or don't introduce. I'm certainly not advocating for removing functionality.

[cookiecaper]

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's saying that semver's system that forces major version bumps for breaking changes is good because it discourages the maintainer from making breaking changes more frequently than he is comfortable releasing a new major version. That is, the effect of getting a maintainer to batch up breaking changes in exchange for version consistency is positive, and thus semver should not be changed as you propose, because it would decrease the cost of releasing a breaking change.

[Sanddancer]

That is even worse, because now you have to look at two numbers to see if something's breaking or not. If you change the API, you bump the major. If you don't want to bump the major, then either figure out a way to do it with the original API, such as a different number of arguments, or put that module in a package that can be installed seperately. Given your original example, you may have package Foo 1.0 which includes subpackage Bar, but you have subpackage Bar 2.0 which people can install separately if they need to. Bumping the major tells people straight out that things have changed. Two majors means that people have to keep track of two numbers for that -- can you tell at a glance if 54.32.593.3 is compatible with 54.33.594.4, for example.

[eridius]

With my proposed version scheme, you won't ever get 54.32.593.3. That's kind of the whole point. So instead you'd be comparing 1.2.1.1 and 1.3.0.2, which is a lot easier to read.

[cbdfghh]

The point of Semantic Versioning is to tell you something.

So let's say you have Compiler 5.3.2

It means that the important thing is compiler #5. Upgrading from 4 to 5 is a _Big Deal_. You may have to rewrite all your code.

Within 5, you have a version 3. 3 has features A,B,C which 2 doesn't have. Most additions go there. So it should be safe to upgrade.

Within that, you have bugfix #2. That _should_ always be upgraded, unless you rely on undocumented features.

So it's easy for me to tell if I should upgrade.

So upgrading from Apache 1 to Apache 2 may brake config scripts and .htaccess files. Don't upgrade on production build.

Upgrading Apache 1.1 to 1.2, See README, Should be fine, do a small test on your testing machine.

Upgrading Apache 1.1.2 to 1.1.3. Probably a security fix. Do so. Immediately.

---------

The OP's numbering system doesn't tell me anything. should I upgrade 5.4.3.2 to 5.5.0.0? Will it be safe? Probably not. You may have to schedule a full testing load just to be sure.

What about from 5.4.3.2 to 6.4.0.0? Same thing. You have to do a full testing.

And if you _really_ break old code, do everyone a favor and rename your project (So, no, please don't call Go C++ V.13 or something)