Using git is not having a versioned library for what it’s worth. Users can’t get the latest fixes by picking a newer commit without building against the changes you put into your libraries apis.
Comment on How do you balance rapid iteration and merging/upgrading?
tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 year agoI’m not suggesting that my library is unversioned. It’s totally version controlled, and users can upgrade to whatever revision they want to pull in the changes. The changes I make upstream don’t affect anyone downstream until they decide to upgrade. It could even adhere to SemVer, but my problem remains: how to minimize rewriting user code? Is it better to have more small upgrades or fewer large upgrades? When is one strategy preferable to another?
echo64@lemmy.world 1 year ago
tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 year ago
I also do SemVer-compliant releases. Backporting fixes is possible.
It doesn’t change the fact that there are large breaking changes between versions. The only users of my library are within the same company, and we have all of the convenience of planning out the changes together.
The challenge arises from developers doing large amounts of R&D on separate but coupled libraries. My library happens to be a very central dependency.
MagicShel@programming.dev 1 year ago
If your library is a core dependency and it is constantly having breaking updates then something is deeply unwell in the environment. That is not sustainable, and it sounds like your library was created without a clear idea of what it should do.
I’ve been around long enough to know these things happen, but you’re not going to find a good way forward because there isn’t one. This is going to be a pain point until either the library is stable or the project fails.
tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 year ago
I think it’s close to stability. And the scope of the library hasn’t changed. It’s just solving a complex problem that requires several very large data structures, and I’ve needed to address a couple important issues along the way.
thelastknowngod@lemm.ee 1 year ago
SemVer seems logical. If most of your changes are breaking, I don’t think it really matters if you are releasing often or occasionally though… If it’s often, the users will get fatigued with upgrades. If it’s occasionally, they’ll be overwhelmed and push it off.
If most of your changes are breaking, you should just disclose that the software is in an alpha/beta state and that it can’t be depended on to remain consistent until you have a defined policy about what gets released and when. It will be up to the users to decide if they are comfortable with those terms.