News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Semver doesn't mean major.minor.patch, it means fails.features.bugs. Parent comment

Re:Semver doesn't mean major.minor.patch, it means fails.fea... by jfrunyon on Friday August 06, 2021 @01:58PM (#28090736)
They failed to predict the future hardware.

A failure isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's the best thing possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Semver doesn't mean major.minor.patch, it means fails.fea... by seoaeu on Friday August 06, 2021 @02:31PM (#28091154)
Predicting the future wasn't the objective. The hardware of that time couldn't have supported OpenGL 3 even if they'd wanted to
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Semver doesn't mean major.minor.patch, it means fails.fea... by Macha on Friday August 06, 2021 @02:03PM (#28090808)
Stating that they failed to predict the future hardware implies that they should or could have.

Is this true? Maybe, maybe not, I'm neither a GPU driver write or a hardware writer, but I suspect no software writer in 1997 was going to predict the hardware of 2008.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Semver doesn't mean major.minor.patch, it means fails.fea... by ratww on Friday August 06, 2021 @03:38PM (#28091843)
Actually they didn't. It was still backwards compatible, so the number change would be unnecessary in semver.
[ Parent | on HN ]