On 14/2/24 8:03 AM, Mathias Gibbens wrote:
On Mon, 2024-02-12 at 19:08 +0530, Praveen Arimbrathodiyil wrote:Do we assume SemVer.org compliance for modules with >= 1.0 versions? ie, should we assume things will break for every minor updates as well?I've personally found it to be a very mixed bag -- some developers do try to follow SemVer, while others don't. At best, the version number can be a hint that there might be breaking changes. I always use `ratt` to build reverse dependencies in main locally before I upload any updated golang package.
But isn't this adding too high a barrier on ourselves if every minor update has to be treated like a breaking change ? (we could have an exception list for sensitive or known bad upstreams like grpc).
OpenPGP_0x8F53E0193B294B75.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
