536
submitted 10 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 10 months ago

This is is basically just true

[-] Phen@lemmy.eco.br 28 points 10 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 10 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 10 months ago

So pride is a synonym for semantic. Got it.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 63 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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

[-] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 5 points 10 months ago

A shameful display!

[-] Rogue@feddit.uk 2 points 10 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 10 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 10 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 10 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 10 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 10 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 10 months ago
[-] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 8 points 10 months ago

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

[-] AnActOfCreation@programming.dev 4 points 10 months ago

This is hilarious

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 13 points 10 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 10 months ago
[-] doktormerlin@feddit.org 7 points 10 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 10 months ago

Release please with conventional commit PR titles.

[-] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 5 points 10 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Just add a leading "0."

Edit: TIL 0ver

[-] allo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

I prefer for versioning to have no discernible pattern

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

Programmer Humor

38757 readers
9 users here now

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

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS