|
|
|
|
|
|
by kscaldef
4830 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not sure, but you may be misunderstanding the article. As far as I can tell, they _are_ following semver, and the discussion is about why they would go to extreme measures to maintain the same major version for 13 years an avoid a binary incompatibility. In other words, it's not that they don't recognize the value of semver, but that they are also considering the cost to users of the varying types of version bumps. |
|
|
I realize they follow semver (at least unofficially), which I think is great. What I want to know is if there any good reasons why others don't do it?