535
submitted 4 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Interstellar_1 77 points 4 months ago

This is is basically just true

[-] Phen@lemmy.eco.br 28 points 4 months ago

I wish it was true here. Major releases are always the most shameful ones because so much is always left to "we can fix that later"

[-] NeatoBuilds@mander.xyz 8 points 4 months ago

Hey as long as it ships it can always be an RMA. If there's a problem the customer will let us know™

[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 3 points 4 months ago

So pride is a synonym for semantic. Got it.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 63 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The fairly mature internal component we're working on is v0.0.134.

[-] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 5 points 4 months ago

A shameful display!

[-] Rogue@feddit.uk 2 points 4 months ago

For an internal project that's fine, and under semantic versioning you can basically break anything you like before v1.0.0 so it's probably valid

[-] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 29 points 4 months ago

I once had someone open an issue in my side project repo who asked about a major release bump and whether it meant there were any breaking changes or major changes and I was just like idk I just thought I added enough and felt like bumping the major version ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[-] Rogue@feddit.uk 21 points 4 months ago

I think is the logic used for Linux kernel versioning so you're in good company.

But everyone should really follow semantic versioning. It makes life so much easier.

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 4 months ago

either have meaning to the number and do semantic versioning, or don't bother and simply use dates or maybe simple increments

[-] Rogue@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago

Date based version numbers is just lazy. There's nothing more significant about a release in two weeks (2025.x.y) than today (2024.x.y).

At least with pride versioning there's some logic to it.

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 4 months ago

the point is just to have a way to tell releases apart, if every release is version 5 then you're going to start self harming

[-] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 4 months ago
[-] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 8 points 4 months ago

I'm afraid most, if not all, of the projects listed use pride versioning, also.

[-] AnActOfCreation@programming.dev 4 points 4 months ago

This is hilarious

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 13 points 4 months ago

That reminds me, maybe I should re-watch Doug Hickey’s full-throated attack on versioning & breaking changes. Spec-ulation Keynote

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 months ago
[-] doktormerlin@feddit.org 7 points 4 months ago

I really had to fight for versioning. Everyone was just patch version here. Breaking changes in the API, new features, completely overhauled design? Well, it's 0.6.24 instead of 0.6.23 now.

But gladly we're moving away from version numbers alltogether. Starting next year it will be 2025.1.0 with monthly releases

[-] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 months ago

Release please with conventional commit PR titles.

[-] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 months ago

I use CalVer in my projects. I might transition to SemVer some time, but given that most of my projects are standalone, it doesn't make much sense to track external compatibility.

Pride Versioning makes no sense, because In never quite proud enough of my work to distinguish it from 0ver.

[-] numanair@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Just add a leading "0."

Edit: TIL 0ver

[-] allo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

I prefer for versioning to have no discernible pattern

this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
535 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

35579 readers
221 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS