Semver violations are common, better tooling is the answer
Semver violations are common, better tooling is the answer
predr.ag
Semver violations are common, better tooling is the answer
23 comments
-
There are also plenty of purposeful semver violations. For example,
serdemakes basically no attempt to follow semver, and any pleas to do otherwise fall on deaf ears.-
With the justification being "I can't be bothered to decide what is breaking/feature/patch", so hey, here's a tool to tell you.
-
Not quite. Suppose instead of a single version of
serdethere's now 46 versions like in https://crates.io/crates/parquet to be able to use instances derived in some other crateXyou have to use the same version ofserde. Now, how should a crate decide which versions ofserdeto support?All 46 and all optional? Supporting that would be painful. Just the last one? crates.io is a cemetery full of dead crates, with this support strategy any handful of crates picked at random are not going to be serde-compatible with each other.
A better solution would be a better support for compile time reflection so serde doesn't have to exist in its current state, but that's got delayed (by big macro conspiracy :)
-
What's more, there was a recent discussion about why the derive feature is recommended in serde, and one of the points brought up was that the versions for both crates basically have to be equal. I couldn't help but wonder, would this be a problem if the releases actually followed semver? Theoretically, it shouldn't matter what versions you use, as long as they're above a certain minor version and the major versions match. But since everything is a patch, we have to pin the two crates together somehow.
-
-
23 comments