November 18
On Thursday, 2 November 2017 at 01:31:15 UTC, Mathias Lang wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 10:48:15 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> I'd like to push a bit on the semver discussion (https://gist.github.com/mdparker/ab61a1309752905cf93acb2653c50beb#gistcomment-2231011), partly to fix the lack of versions in the dmd dub package (http://code.dlang.org/packages/dmd).
>> [...]
>>
>> Of course the hard part of a semver transition is the semantics.
>>
>> Plase reread http://semver.org/, with the above release schedule, this would mean API changes such as deprecations, errors, symbol removals, and ABI changes could only be released every 6 months (exluding std.experimental I'd guess).
>>
>> For this to become feasible we could reuse the master/stable branches, with master being the next 6 month release version, and stable the next minor release.
>> Fixes (that don't break code) would go into stable as is the case today.
>>
>> If someone is interesting in backporting patches from stable for new patch releases, that could happen on optional 8.0/9.1 branches.
>>
>> Arguments? Opinions?
>
> I think the discussion you linked, as well as this post, is sadly getting lost in the bikeshedding of what number to use, and missing the point on how SemVer applies to D.
>
> I have a few questions, partly rhetorical:

> 1) What does SemVer means for the compiler ? Does it apply only to the *language* (I assume that's a given, that a minor version will not break code but only add features) or also to the interface exposed (the dub package) ? If so, what is included, just the current subpackages ?

Indeed, compiler-as-library implies that the API for released parts is stable between major releases as well.

> 2) Do we have any plan to support multiple major versions at the same time (be it now or in the far future) ? Do we have plans to support minor release for a certain time / a certain number of releases (e.g. bugfix would go to v80.1.x and v80.2.x) ? I assume the answer is no ATM, but it's an important part of SemVer and we'll eventually evolve in this direction.

See OP

> If someone is interesting in backporting patches from stable for new patch releases, that could happen on optional 8.0/9.1 branches.

We'd need additional maintainers for this IMO.

> 3) Besides the new tags, will there be any effect on the git repository ? Will master be turned into v7.x.x for example ? If we go for, say 12 months support of a major, how will we deal with breaking changes which are ready just after the support start ? Should they linger there, or will we direct people to target `v8.x.x` (or whatever the next major is) or a `development` branch ? Who will handle merges and when ? How do we educate on the proper usage of SemVer when stable/master is already confusing to some ?

See OP

> For this to become feasible we could reuse the master/stable branches, with master being the next 6 month release version, and stable the next minor release.
> Fixes (that don't break code) would go into stable as is the case today.

> 4) If we take a library perspective (Phobos), what qualifies as breaking change ? One of the most successful project with strong compatibility guarantee out there, Qt, has been using some C++ tricks. There is an amazing wiki (https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C%2B%2B) on how it's done, and the "Do and don't" is extremely useful. However in D there is no such thing. In fact, since one can test for the absence of a symbol / signature, any symbol addition can be considered a breaking change given a strict-enough policy. So what are our dos and don't?

As usual such things should be based more on recommendations and common sense than strict policies. Some education on binary compat and an example list would indeed be useful tools to guide decisions. As this is just a proposal such guidelines do not yet exist.
Also note that our community already has an established notion of what a breaking change is, though the understanding varies somewhat.

My understanding is roughly source and binary compatibility for any documented API usage.
Also deprecations should only happen with major releases.
As D has a very rich introspection capabilities, I doubt those can be fully covered.

> Last but not least, there is very little overlap between our people which are knowledgeable (enough) about SemVer, and those who are knowledgeable (enough) about DMD.

There isn't much to know about SemVer, other than that API/ABIs should not break between major releases.
December 12
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 10:48:15 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> v7.6.0+2.076.0
> v7.6.0-b1+2.076.0-b1
> v7.6.0-b2+2.076.0-b2
> v7.6.0-rc1+2.076.0-rc1
> v7.6.1+2.076.1
> v7.6.1-b1+2.076.1-b1
> v7.7.0-beta.1+2.077.0-beta.1
> v7.7.0-beta.2+2.077.0-beta.2
> v7.7.0-rc.1+2.077.0-rc.1

This does not make sense as we all know that major version is 2 so why not tag it appropriately with v2.76.0 or v2.7.6-0 or something similar? Why duplicating data in these tags?
December 13
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 10:48:15 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> I'd like to push a bit on the semver discussion (https://gist.github.com/mdparker/ab61a1309752905cf93acb2653c50beb#gistcomment-2231011), partly to fix the lack of versions in the dmd dub package (http://code.dlang.org/packages/dmd).
>
>
> Arguments? Opinions?

Related to that, there is a library that I wrote two years ago: http://code.dlang.org/packages/semver. Maybe you find it useful.


December 24
Having '2' as part of the semver version isn't really useful because if there's a d3, it'll be a completely different program, not a new version.  D2 will be completely and wholly separate from D3.  Why not, e.g., make the version 77.0.0?
December 27
On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 at 16:50:36 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 10:48:15 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> v7.6.0+2.076.0
>> v7.6.0-b1+2.076.0-b1
>> v7.6.0-b2+2.076.0-b2
>> v7.6.0-rc1+2.076.0-rc1
>> v7.6.1+2.076.1
>> v7.6.1-b1+2.076.1-b1
>> v7.7.0-beta.1+2.077.0-beta.1
>> v7.7.0-beta.2+2.077.0-beta.2
>> v7.7.0-rc.1+2.077.0-rc.1
>
> This does not make sense as we all know that major version is 2 so why not tag it appropriately with v2.76.0

Yes, i don't see why this wouldn't go this way.
If you continue developing the language as you do since years, this scheme works fine, despite of the "2" that's not really useful.

> or v2.7.6-0

For this to work they'd have to change the way they develop. Also where /when to start with the new scheme not very clear.

The first proposition works well because there's a minor release every 3 months, between patches and the optional component can be used to tag betas and release candidates.

Maybe i'm blind or stupid but

<language version>.<minor release every 3 months>.<unplanned patches>

etc would work fine.


January 02
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 05:59:28 UTC, user1234 wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 at 16:50:36 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 10:48:15 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>> v7.6.0+2.076.0
>>> v7.6.0-b1+2.076.0-b1
>>> v7.6.0-b2+2.076.0-b2
>>> v7.6.0-rc1+2.076.0-rc1
>>> v7.6.1+2.076.1
>>> v7.6.1-b1+2.076.1-b1
>>> v7.7.0-beta.1+2.077.0-beta.1
>>> v7.7.0-beta.2+2.077.0-beta.2
>>> v7.7.0-rc.1+2.077.0-rc.1
>>
>> This does not make sense as we all know that major version is 2 so why not tag it appropriately with v2.76.0

No, there have been 76 major versions of D2.
https://dlang.org/changelog/index.html

> <language version>.<minor release every 3 months>.<unplanned patches>
>
> etc would work fine.

See http://forum.dlang.org/post/mcatldmxmtfwfcljzevs@forum.dlang.org, we're not guaranteeing  API/ABI stability between releases atm., so practically we're doing a major release every two month.
Using 2 as major version meant no more API/ABI changes until 3.x.y.

January 02
On Friday, 3 November 2017 at 07:43:25 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Would that mean that we would need to maintain a stable API for the root, lexer and parser packages? Which I assume we currently don't.

Good point, we haven't thought about compiler-as-a-library stability yet.
January 02
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 04:47:30 UTC, Elronnd wrote:
> D2 will be completely and wholly separate from D3.  Why not, e.g., make the version 77.0.0?

See https://gist.github.com/mdparker/ab61a1309752905cf93acb2653c50beb#description

> An argument can be made that jumping from a major version of 2 to 75 is jarring, while starting with 3.0.0 is more natural.

Furthermore we should reduce the interval of major releases from currently 2 month, to 6 or 12 months, and sticking with the 07x numbers isn't too helpful for that.
January 02
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 12:23:16 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>
> Furthermore we should reduce the interval of major releases from currently 2 month, to 6 or 12 months, and sticking with the 07x numbers isn't too helpful for that.

The greatest strength of the current development model is the fast release schedule. We should strive to keep it at all costs! If that's the cost of having semantic versioning we definitely better off without it.

January 03
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 12:55:11 UTC, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
> The greatest strength of the current development model is the fast release schedule. We should strive to keep it at all costs! If that's the cost of having semantic versioning we definitely better off without it.

We would still keep the bi-monthly releases, but make them point releases.
So new additions could still be released regularly, but breaking changes and deprecations would have to wait until the next major release.
1 2 3