Hi Daan,
On 5/1/25 09:22, Daan Hoogland wrote:
The biggest reasons lately people have had to roll back afaics were
unforseen side effects of enhancements, not interface changes. That
doesn't negate the importance of being careful with breaking changes,
but as the one exception I think we must allow for breaking changes if
these mitigate security issues.
+1 on your exception.
That is one way of looking at it. Another one is regarding the 4 as
mute and considering the current minor version (20) as being the
actual major version currently.
I say this to instill the feeling in us all that the changes to our
process won't actually be that big.
We can have a voting regarding the naming, to me either way is ok. Going
for three digit versions would actually put us back into following
semantic versioning as written.
I want to amend that to say that the deprecation can be initiated in
any previous version that is more then 6 months before. I don't see
the need to deprecate in majort versions, only the actual removal
should be.
As long as it is properly announced, I guess it could be in a previous
non-major version.
Best regards,
João Jandre
