On Sep 1, 2013, at 11:32 AM, "Dustin J. Mitchell" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: >> That implies that we can't ship it until 4.0, which would be a tragedy >> worth fighting hard to avoid. > > At the risk of sounding impertinent, I think you have it backward. > When a desirable feature or enhancement requires a > backward-incompatible change, that implies it's time to ship 4.0 (more > generally, the next major version). > > Semantic versioning doesn't mean "delay breaking changes until a major > version". It means "go ahead and make breaking changes as needed, but > label them with a major version." > > Of course, for users' sanity, breaking changes should be minimized, or > you'll be releasing Puppet 52 before Firefox 52 is out ;) So if > there's a way to fix an issue without a breaking change, that's the > best solution. And reading the rest of this thread, it looks like > that's what is happening. You're absolutely right, and I deserve that since I fight the same impression. That being said, you saw the list of "Puppet 4" things, and it's a long one; it'd be a fight, I think, to up the rev just for this without including those. I agree with you, though, that we should be willing to do exactly that. However, I still disagree that fixing bugs should constitute a change worth upping a major rev. If it's a bug, then fixing it shouldn't be an incompatibility, should it? -- Luke Kanies | http://about.me/lak | http://puppetlabs.com/ | +1-615-594-8199 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
