+1 Le jeudi 20 septembre 2012 21:54:40 UTC+2, Tim Caswell a écrit : > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Austin William Wright > <diamon...@users.sourceforge.net <javascript:>> wrote: > > If more than a dozen people are using your package, then next time you > make > > a breaking change, release 1.0.0. Continue to clearly identify when you > make > > breaking changes, when you release new features, and when you release a > > patch. > > > > That'd help tremendously with the package ecosystem, I believe. > Certainly > > it'd help me. > > > > Ok, so lets break this into two requests. > > 1. When releasing a version of a library, please clearly mark API > breaking changes so consumers of the library won't get bitten. > > 2. Migrate from > architecture-change.breaking-change.non-breaking-change numbers to > breaking-change.non-breaking-feature-addition.bug-fix numbers. > > I think we all agree that 1. is a good idea. Authors who don't do > this cause trouble, yes, but it's not node's or npm's responsibility > to police this. Contact the authors directly or have a mailing list > thread directly about this issue. > > Item 2 has varied opinions on it and there is a lot of momentum in the > "old" system. If I as an author suddenly release 1.0.0 as a way to > migrate to the "new" system it will send the wrong message to my > users. In current de-facto semantics that means API feature freeze > and the project is stable. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just > saying that migrating is a lot of effort with little gain. If you > feel the gain is worth the effort, then address that directly, but > don't confuse it with item 1. > > > On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:16:07 PM UTC-7, Rick Waldron wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Austin William Wright > >> <diamon...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> The API does not need to be what you definitely want. If you decide to > >>> later change the API, just release 2.0.0. The important part is that > you > >>> tell us clearly that the API broke. That's all that matters. > >>> > >> > >> What is the end game? Were you hoping to get everyone to smarten up, > see > >> the error of their ways and change all of their package.json files? > >> > >> This is a serious question. > >> > >> > > -- > > Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > > Posting guidelines: > > https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "nodejs" group. > > To post to this group, send email to nod...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > nodejs+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en >
-- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
