Post

Proposing an extended SemVer - 🗿 Epoch Semantic Versioning to communicate better about versions. Thinking of adopting this to all my projects, and finally eliminating my lousy habit of forever zero-major practice 😜 What do you think? 👀 antfu.me/posts/epoch-...

So it's the same as semver-with-many-majors and semver-but-keep-the-major-as-zero-so-that-every-minor-can-be-breaking (already a common practice), but with gaps in the major version to jump to 100, 200, 300. My take: tiny marketing win at the cost of awkward gaps in the versioning scheme, meh.

As a user of many packages and libraries, this is also not a problem I have with libraries, and may perpetuate a problem I do have. In my experience, 10 breaking changes are not easier to deal with when spread as 7 majors instead of 1. The only thing that is easier: fewer breaking changes.

Progressive breaking changes have one upside: you can try upgrading major releases one by one. It's still a painful process. Downsides: - flip-flopping changes (v11 changed an API, v16 changed it again, v21 yet again…); - encourages maintainers to give low guidance for breaking changes.