Issue #15456 has been updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE).


> Just for a point of reference, I use "~> x.y" for all my dependencies, as, taking into consideration semantic versioning, this allows for the maximum range of support but excluding breaking changes (i.e. x must stay the same, but y can increase).

Yeah, as `lib/rubygems/version.rb` says people should use "~> x.y" to avoid breaking changes if you are pessimistic.

```
#   Specification From  ... To (exclusive)
#   ">= 3.0"      3.0   ... ∞
#   "~> 3.0"      3.0   ... 4.0
#   "~> 3.0.0"    3.0.0 ... 3.1
#   "~> 3.5"      3.5   ... 4.0
#   "~> 3.5.0"    3.5.0 ... 3.6
#   "~> 3"        3.0   ... 4.0
```

But dropping old rubies will happen every year and it can affect gems to remove legacy code.
If it is considered as breaking changes as you said, it will cause major bump and it's false positive for normal users who runs application with current rubies.

I think such false positive hearts Semantic Versioning.

----------------------------------------
Feature #15456: Adopt some kind of consistent versioning mechanism
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15456#change-75915

* Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
After the discussion https://github.com/ruby/bigdecimal/issues/114 I feel like we would benefit from some consistent versioning mechanism across all of Ruby.

So far, I feel the majority of Ruby uses some form of semantic versioning.

For the sanity of all Ruby users, I think it would be a good policy to adopt this across core Ruby and standard gems.

There are some previous discussions around this:

- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9215
- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/GeneralMaintenancePolicy
- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8835

So, the questions are as follows:

- Can we adopt Semantic Versioning (or as much of it as possible) across Ruby?
- Would such a change help users of Ruby?
- Is there existing documentation about how version number works?
- How does it deviate from Semantic Versioning?
- Is this deviation important and worth the additional complexity for our users?

As an aside:

- How do other implementations advertise compatibility with Ruby?
- JRuby and RBX have totally different version numbers that are difficult to understand w.r.t. compatibility with mainline CRuby.

My main concern is how difficult this is for everyone to keep track of and also the implied assumptions (e.g. breaking change if and only if major versions bump). If different parts of Ruby use different versioning scheme, it is hard for our users to define dependencies which don't cause broken software.




-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>