Praveen Arimbrathodiyil writes:
> 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
>>>
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
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 fol
Hi
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?
Thanks
Praveen
OpenPGP_0x8F53E0193B294B75.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
