Re:Bevy 0.12
by ncallaway on Saturday November 04, 2023 @08:00PM
(#38146542)
> What will most likely happen is that there with be large subsets of Bevy users who never use a formally stable Bevy codebase, and then leave for something different, because there are no guarantees.
But you haven't asked for them to release a formally stable Bevy codebase. You just asked them to change to a 1.0 version that implicitly promises a stable codebase. You specifically asked:
"and if you plan on breaking it quarterly, just be upfront with people and move through major versions."
That's not being up-front with people. A game-engine that breaks quarterly absolutely isn't ready to be versioned with a major-version. As I said in response to your first post, a "0.x" versioning system *is* being up-front with people.
If instead of suggesting: "can you switch to a 1.0 major version that you increment quarterly", you're instead suggesting: "can you stabilize the API and not release breaking changes quarterly" I think those are two entirely different requests. Your first post made the former request, which is what I was responding to.
But you haven't asked for them to release a formally stable Bevy codebase. You just asked them to change to a 1.0 version that implicitly promises a stable codebase. You specifically asked:
"and if you plan on breaking it quarterly, just be upfront with people and move through major versions."
That's not being up-front with people. A game-engine that breaks quarterly absolutely isn't ready to be versioned with a major-version. As I said in response to your first post, a "0.x" versioning system *is* being up-front with people.
If instead of suggesting: "can you switch to a 1.0 major version that you increment quarterly", you're instead suggesting: "can you stabilize the API and not release breaking changes quarterly" I think those are two entirely different requests. Your first post made the former request, which is what I was responding to.