20241127214906.0.0 will be marked as incompatible with 20241127214907.0.0 by any such system that parses them.
The document specifically disclaims semantic compatibility.
That’s… compatibility.
>Sure, but it does parse them and it does rightly understand that one is an newer version. > >That’s… compatibility.
Again, it isn't compatibility if the new scheme breaks every assumption that the old one had. You can't just say "The package manager wants 3 numbers so I'll stick 3 numbers in there. So it's compatible, see!" as the numbers you're putting in have no meaningful connection to the affordances of the other scheme.
I've spelled out some more concrete objections (including the fact that the date is arbitrary and that the hashes are not ordered according to authorship) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42267051
Package managers only work well with SemVer. They try to accept other schemes but anything but SemVer is an antipattern because of the inherent difficulties in figuring out what is actually going to satisfy a dependency.
Repeat after me: the use case that fits this does not involve package managers, external distribution or any form of compatibility constraints.
Repeat after me: the use case that fits this involves the need a versioning scheme that’s better than a meaningless incrementing integer”
Repeat after me: the use case that fits this involves a need to integrate with a deployment system or tooling that expects semver versions.
Repeat after me: I want a semver compatible versioning scheme.
>TrunkVer is a SemVer-compatible versioning scheme for continuously-delivered, trunk-based applications and systems that don't follow a release scheme.
It's not compatible with SemVer. I've explained why it isn't compatible in any sense multiple times now in various comments, probably most of them in reply to you.
>Repeat after me: the use case that fits this involves a need to integrate with a deployment system or tooling that expects semver versions.
Just because it fits doesn't mean it's "compatible". If you apply this TrunkVer scheme to a library, continuously deployed or not, the result is a disaster.
>I really don’t get what your obsession is with compatibility and package managers.
>the use case that fits this involves a need to integrate with a deployment system or tooling that expects semver versions.
A "deployment system" that you need to integrate with is most commonly a package manager.
>Repeat after me: the use case that fits this involves the need a versioning scheme that’s better than a meaningless incrementing integer
This may be more informative than an incrementing integer, but it is still not compatible with SemVer as the original page claims, and it is neglects many important considerations like variance between the build date, code version, and authorship date.
If you're going to reply to me again about this I suggest that you follow your own advice, because I've given fairly definitive objections to this scheme already:
>Stop and actually read what people are telling you before replying.
Cool, except those are not systems or an applications are they?
> A "deployment system" that you need to integrate with is most commonly a package manager.
Completely incorrect for systems and applications.
> If you're going to reply to me again about this I suggest that you follow your own advice, because I've given fairly definitive objections to this scheme already
You did it again. You didn’t read.
> Repeat after me: the use case that fits this does not involve package managers, external distribution or any form of compatibility constraints.
>> A "deployment system" that you need to integrate with is most commonly a package manager.
>Completely incorrect for systems and applications.
I'm not wrong, but keep hitting the copium bro.
>Repeat after me: the use case that fits this does not involve package managers, external distribution or any form of compatibility constraints.
As I said, nearly everyone has compatibility concerns, or can develop them at any time. This is a short-sighted scheme. I can't deny that it "works" in some sense for a small number of people who are willing to make bad assumptions like that. But I cannot in good faith recommend it to anyone.
- What is the version number of GitHub.com?
- Do you think the deployment version is an appropriate format to convey compatibility in a system of that size and complexity?
- Do you think it is deployed via a package manager like NPM or Bundle?
Once you’re able to read and answer these in an honest fashion, you’ll reach enlightenment.
Until then, keep wondering I guess.
- What is the version number of GitHub.com? = I don’t know
- Do you think the deployment version is an appropriate format to convey compatibility in a system of that size and complexity? = I do not
- Do you think it is deployed via a package manager like NPM or Bundle? = I do not
>Do you think the deployment version is an appropriate format to convey compatibility in a system of that size and complexity? = I do not
OK I wonder how GitHub does self-hosting, migrations, etc. I assume they have bespoke upgrade scripts to migrate, and you might have to run them in a sequence. That doesn't mean SemVer is inappropriate. It just isn't going to help much.
>- Do you think it is deployed via a package manager like NPM or Bundle? = I do not
Although the site might not be deployed this way, libraries that interact with it probably are and they probably use SemVer. The only real argument against that is that you can't tell the API version supported from an unrelated SemVer number.
It’s not supposed to be informative. It’s not supposed to be parsed. It’s a version identifier. The date is much better than a commit hash or an opaque number for this.
Using semver for an external API is not a good fit at all. Compatibility is binary: it’s compatible or it’s not.
If it’s not compatible, it’s a new version.
Think on this a bit, and consider how this applies to a service as a whole, and you’ll finally understand what everyone has been telling you.
> That doesn't mean SemVer is inappropriate. It just isn't going to help much.
Irrelevant.
> Although the site might not be deployed this way, libraries that interact with it probably are and they probably use SemVer
Totally irrelevant.
Not true. You can be compatible with all APIs, adding no new features; you can add new features; and you can break existing features. These are the levels that SemVer can communicate. This makes as much sense for a web API as a binary library.
>Think on this a bit, and consider how this applies to a service as a whole, and you’ll finally understand what everyone has been telling you.
What all 3 of them? A vast majority of people prefer SemVer even if they detest the work that it generates. It's like a form of documentation.
You don’t get it, seemingly by choice at this point. Good luck with that.
Lots of people use SemVer for web APIs. I think you clearly don't get why it is superior to TrunkVer. Good luck with that.
- use a monorepo, where dependencies on libraries don't have versions, they are just relative paths
- the specified version is exact, if you want an update, you change the version dependency version constraint
- you have CI automatically update such dependencies to use the latest version.
- you don't use this versioning scheme for libraries
Even if you use CI to do all your builds, this scheme only really works if you're willing to build everything just because one thing updated its dependency. There is no concept of stability or long-term testing with TrunkVer. It's basically only suitable for a specific type of application and environment. It is not suitable for libraries.
>use a monorepo, where dependencies on libraries don't have versions, they are just relative paths
This is only an answer if there is one consumer of this repo and one major product. When a monorepo contains libraries, it is also the sole consumer of the libraries.
Absolutely. This isn't a replacement for SemVer, it is alternative to be used in cases where SemVer doesn't really make sense.
Which is exactly what TrunkVer does. Every release increases the major version number. As long as the clock you use for the timestamp is monotonic.
> It probably also tells you approximately how many releases were between any two versions as well.
TrunkVer os useful in cases where knowing the time the version was created is more useful than knowing how many releases are between two versions. In particular, continuously deployed projects, where you might have multiple releases a day.
> But for an app or library, especially one that generates data and/or has a programmatic interface, SemVer is better.
For a library, I think it would be pretty rare for TrunkVer to make sense, unless maybe the only consumer of the library was an app that also used TrunkVer. For an app, it often makes sense to version an external API or data format independently of the app itself.
Well that and you never need to run old versions of the software, rebuild old versions, deal with customers who have different versions, etc.
>TrunkVer os useful in cases where knowing the time the version was created is more useful than knowing how many releases are between two versions. In particular, continuously deployed projects, where you might have multiple releases a day.
If you want to know when a build happened then it would be better to put that last. SemVer-based package systems typically do something like that with a fourth number. However, odds are you just want the latest in a series based on one code archive, so it only needs to be a simple sequence. People who need to know the date can consult other metadata to find out.
>For a library, I think it would be pretty rare for TrunkVer to make sense, unless maybe the only consumer of the library was an app that also used TrunkVer.
I think it's more complicated than this and thus TrunkVer only makes sense at the top level. If you apply it to a library, you better own the library and practically use a monorepo for your one app.
>For an app, it often makes sense to version an external API or data format independently of the app itself.
This only makes sense if you have multiple apps to deal with. Otherwise, the data format version practically is the app version and it would be pointless extra work for them to deviate.
In many situations at work, trying to follow SemVer would be a technical solution to a non-technical problem.
You know who your users are. Before you make any breaking change, you already have cross-product team meetings with possible executive buy in.
In those scenarios, by time you assign a version number, everyone is already on the same page. The actual version number is meaningless and conveys no useful information. Spending any time on deciding the version creates unnecessary toil.
>You know who your users are. Before you make any breaking change, you already have cross-product team meetings with possible executive buy in.
Generally none of these things are true. You don't know your users or how they intend to use your product. The executives certainly don't care about version numbers.
There are some cases where nobody cares about version numbers, which mainly occur when there is one or a handful of consumers of a product and they are likewise committed to very frequent releases. This is not how most distributable libraries work. Furthermore, people care less about version numbers when the numbers are not correctly assigned in the first place. If you aren't using SemVer then it's just an increasing sequence for the most part.
I think you’ve deeply misunderstood the problem this is solving.
In short: What specific version tag is GitHub.com running right now? Even if you knew, is that version information meaningful?
Stop being needlessly and incorrectly pedantic about a highly context dependent and loosely defined word like “compatible”.
No, I’ve got to sell you what you want. And if you don’t want a compatibility relationship between package versions, then it’s an easy sell.
You’ve clearly not worked anywhere where this would be an easy sell. And that’s fine - it’s a specific kind of system that benefits from this, but don’t waste your time writing thousands of words when a simple “I don’t get why this is useful” would be enough.
Everyone has to think about compatibility, generally speaking, unless there is exactly one consumer of the product that is always running trunk and all their data is continuously migrated to the newest version. If you commit to using TrunkVer, then that's the only use case you can ever easily support, until you decide to switch to something like SemVer.
>You’ve clearly not worked anywhere where this would be an easy sell. And that’s fine - it’s a specific kind of system that benefits from this, but don’t waste your time writing thousands of words when a simple “I don’t get why this is useful” would be enough.
Whether or not it's an easy sell for a certain kind of user is a separate issue from the fact that it is unsuitable for most projects and libraries. It's also a separate issue from the fact that this version scheme does not deliver on its prominent claims of "compatibility".
I have probably worked at a company or two where TrunkVer could fly. But I would not advocate for it because I consider it a bad idea.
Bingo