On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 15:59, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> See https://dev.to/kspeakman/elm-019-broke-us--khn , > https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/native-code-in-0-19/826 Yes, this did happen... but I would also qualify it by adding that it should have been very clear that the kernel interfaces are not public APIs and should not have been relied upon. Warnings about this were given in advance and ignored. It was certainly clear to me, and I have succesfully upgraded code through Elm 0.17, to 0.18 to 0.19 - there has even always been a nice `elm-upgrade` tool to help with some of the drudge work. We should also infer from the 0.18 version number and conventions of semantic versioning that 0.19 did not have to be backwards compatible. But in the same light, production work based on 0.19 is taking the exact same risks. Quite often the Elm community asks for the current 0.19.1 version to simply be re-published as 1.0.0. The quality of it is easily good enough to be a version 1, and there community is large enough and contains more than sufficient talent to maintain a version 1.
