|
|
|
|
|
by hambes
6 days ago
|
|
the article mentions three types of stakeholders: contributors, debuggers and incident responders. it entirely fails to mentions consumers, who mostly care about backwards compatibility of changes, and thus about the type of a change. once the type is established, e.g. a change is breakimg, the consumer next cares about the scope to make downstream adjustments. the part about broken promises regarding breaking changes is _kind of_ fair, but only assuming tooling isn't able to track reverts. accidental breakages occure with every approach and better to have an approximation than no information at all. |
|