This is cute and all, but completely ignores how useful strict semantic versioning is to both developers and maintainers.
Everybody bitching about semver is lazy, full stop. If you can't be bothered to bound breaking changes only into major versions, and can't be bothered to document properly the expected functionality of things in your package, you shouldn't be sharing your code with people.
And if your answer is "lololol I'll just stay at <0.x" so that you can Move Fast and Break Things, I'm going to mock you.
Comments
This is cute and all, but completely ignores how useful strict semantic versioning is to both developers and maintainers.
Everybody bitching about semver is lazy, full stop. If you can't be bothered to bound breaking changes only into major versions, and can't be bothered to document properly the expected functionality of things in your package, you shouldn't be sharing your code with people.
And if your answer is "lololol I'll just stay at <0.x" so that you can Move Fast and Break Things, I'm going to mock you.
The page was satirical. Given the content, the author is likely pro semantic versioning.
Given some of the issue threads I've seen around the topic, it's not always obvious to me when people are making satire and when they're serious. D:
That settles it. I'm using balanced ternary version numbers in my next project. Or maybe I'll just use tally marks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_marks
We should document life versioning, as in web 1.0 verses web 3.0.
Can I do a pull request to make this change, or is this page so 1.0?
"And how does this change make you feel?"
If it's Gnome, worse. Always worse.
its*
its*
its*
its
Came here to say just that. Amazing how distracting that gets.