uugghh pet peeve... "the functionality of something broke" != "the public API changed", yet people think semver "breaking change" means both
-
-
Replying to @Carols10cents
@Carols10cents It's not clear to me that there is a significant distinction. If "open(x)" starts closing files...?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gankra_
@Gankro semver provides guarantees for the public API not changing, but you can't ever prove that you didn't break *anything*
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Carols10cents
@Carols10cents how does under-specification interact with SemVer? "eat shit"?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gankra_
@Carols10cents Also, pretty sure almost no one has read all of SemVer? Hard to care about letter of the law when ya shit's broke, regardless1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gankra_
@Gankro people whine and bitch and say "you claimed you followed semver but my shit's broke you lied!!!" no, that's not how this works
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Carols10cents
@Carols10cents if code doesn't compile, isn't that clearly true? (That's one of the more common issues I've seen if we're talkin Rust)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gankra_
@Gankro i suppose. but that's not everything involved in "working"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @Gankra_
@Gankro
@Carols10cents Remember the std buffered reader treating newlines differently? That.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@ManishEarth @Gankro yup that.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.