Semver violations are common, better tooling is the answer - eviltoast
  • kornel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • manpacket@lemmyrs.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not quite. Suppose instead of a single version of serde there’s now 46 versions like in https://crates.io/crates/parquet to be able to use instances derived in some other crate X you have to use the same version of serde. Now, how should a crate decide which versions of serde to 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 :)

    • Anders429@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.