Unfortunately, the version is like a month old, so some may already be using it...
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Can't speak to the Rust ecosystem, but if it were Scala it would be something like, if it's < 1.0.0 just release it with notes about the change, if >= 1.0.0 and it would break source compatibility, increment major version and release. Never not release when it's a critical bug.
-
(if it wouldn't break binary compatibility, but would break source compatibility, increment minor version instead; if it would break neither then increment patch version instead)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
That's what major versions are for
-
Or minor in the case of 0.x
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No breaking change needed, IMO. That’s a correctness bug and code relying on it is broken _anyways_. (what’s the wrong implementation?)
-
tend to agree in spirit, but it's an api change that will cause calling code to break (fail to compile) which is pretty much the definition. My suggestion is that adding a panic clause to docs where there was none before without signalling via version is also bad, so just fix.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
You can always try the “push a fix and see if someone cries foul” approach. Declare the previous API a bug and mistake!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Being a correctness bug, I think it's legitimate to fix, even though it breaks.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.