It’s always arbitrary. We don’t bump major version when we make incompatible behavioural changes in bug fixes, for instance. It’s always a judgement: this release has important changes you should take a close look at. That’s all it means.
Stuff that’s literally arbitrated is always somewhat inconsistent. Versioning is arbitrated, by us, and even amongst the semver proponents there’s disagreement about what it means to make a breaking change. The most consistent thing is to drop the distinction entirely, and get rid of major/minor. > On 17 Oct 2022, at 15:09, Alex Petrov <al...@coffeenco.de> wrote: > > Could you be more explicit? Are you saying we should release 5.0 instead of > 4.2 (which I'm assuming you're advocating for), or are you saying we should > release 4.2? > > I still do not understand the question, really. It can't be more important to > be consistent with versioning than for versions to mean what we want them to > communicate, but we can do well on both fronts without much additional effort. > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022, at 3:55 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote: >> >> >> I'm also a bit confused by the original question: if there's a proposal to >> release 4.2 as 5.0, let's hear out why and just vote for it (list reasons, >> and let everyone express their opinions about why this does or does not >> warrant the version bump). If there are no reasons for us to do, I'm not >> sure why this is important. >> >> >> Consistency. To the benefit of operators. >> >> I totally get from our PoV there's no problem with this being arbitrary. But >> from experience witnessing the uncertainty and pain operators go through, >> this "decide it each time" is not simplifying it for anyone. >>
