@sebmck @contrahacks We are talking about a library with two public methods where the breaking change is replacing one line with another
-
-
Replying to @dan_abramov
@dan_abramov@contrahacks that makes it even weirder that it's on 3.0.0 then2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @dan_abramov
@dan_abramov@contrahacks lack of thought and experimentation in "private" instead of pushing it on public production users1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @sebmck
@sebmck@contrahacks It wouldn't happen in private. The only reason this change happened is because 5 people looked at it at different times2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dan_abramov
@dan_abramov@contrahacks by private i mean as an RFC1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sebmck1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
-
Replying to @dan_abramov
@sebmck@contrahacks The linked issues show the suboptimal architecture has been discussed for weeks before I even started working on it1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dan_abramov
@dan_abramov the linked issue predates all majors. API stability being addressed now doesn't change that it wasn't a priority in the past3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@dan_abramov I'm confused that you're arguing against my starting point about breaking changes not being a big deal for some libs then?
-
-
Replying to @dan_abramov
@sebmck We can either bump major for this, or release a separate library. But we don’t want new people to use old way because it’s wrong.2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation
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.
he/him 