Hi Otto,

I would not like to start Semver exactly now ... and it doesn't help if we 
start bumping major versions with every release.

In the end this wouldn't really change anything. If we bump the major version 
number it's still incompatible with the old one and we don't know if anyone 
even cared about the incompatibility. And if we bump the major version all the 
time people could be annoyed of us breaking things all the time ;-)

Chris





Am 20.11.20, 15:32 schrieb "Otto Fowler" <[email protected]>:

     or, we can follow versioning rules and have the ‘new kafka sink’ trigger a
    proper release that allows breaking backwards compatibility

    From: Christofer Dutz <[email protected]>
    <[email protected]>
    Reply: [email protected] <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
    Date: November 20, 2020 at 06:08:51
    To: [email protected] <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
    Subject:  [DISCUSS] How about changing the way we act on "backward
    compatability"?

    Hi all,

    in a discussion with Ben on the Kafka Connect adapter. He was trying to
    stay compatible with the past in order to not break anything with existing
    installations. As of know I don’t know of a single usage of it anywhere.

    The thing is: we developed a lot of stuff and as of now we don’t really
    know who is actually using what. And in the past I have seen multiple times
    that stuff I was thought to be used, actually couldn’t have and I was
    wasting my energy in keeping things compatible while it would have been
    better to change them.

    So how about we call out loud on all channels that we promise to pay
    attention to parts we know are being used. And the only way we can know
    about this, is if the companies actually tell us.

    I’d even call it out as “We are working hard on reaching the version 1.0.0
    and for this we might want to clean up and change a few things”.

    This way we can assure we evolve the different parts as freely as possible.
    If someone complains that we broke something they were using, we’ve got an
    excuse and perhaps we’ll get more official statements about usage this way?

    What do you think?

    Chris

Reply via email to