On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:08 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Yes, exactly correct. We have three "contracts" to keep that I think aligns >>> very well with the following semver "contracts": >>> Major => API/ABI compatibility for modules >>> Minor => Feature and directives >>> Patch => Functional and configuration syntax guarantees >>> >>> Demonstrating by way of a few examples: >>> If we add a directive but do not change exported structure, that would >>> result in a minor bump since the directive is part of the feature set that >>> would necessitate a config change to use (not forward compatible). >> >> I don't agree that adding directives is adding function, in terms of >> versioning or user expectations. I don't see why it a new directive >> or parameter should necessarily wait for a new minor release >> especially when there's so much sensitivity to behavior changes. It >> seems backwards. > > As a general rule, adding a directive introduces a new feature, along > with new functions, and structure additions.
I won't argue the semantics any further, but I don't agree there is any such equivalence or general rule. For me including this would poison almost any proposal it is added to. In the context above: I want to use directives for opt-in of fixes in a patch release. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
