Regarding Semantic Versioning
Semantic Versioning is a meta-API
So as not to bury the lede, I’ll get to my point: Semantic Versioning is a meta-API, and maintainers who are cavalier about violating it can’t be trusted to created stable contracts. I’ve lost patience for breaking changes making their way to my code bases without the maintainers incrementing the major version of their projects, especially in language ecosystems where Semantic Versioning is expected, and in such cases I’m going to begin exploring alternative options so I can ban such libraries from my projects—personal and professional—altogether.
What Even Is Semantic Versioning?
When developers adopt an external library into their code bases, they do so knowing they will be bound in their use of the library by the application programming interface (API). In this sense, an API can be seen as a kind of contract between a library’s maintainer and its consumers. If a maintainer makes frequent changes to a library’s API, then that API is considered unstable. In that situation, consumers either use the library anyway, accepting the risk that things will break as a result of a change in the library, or they avoid it.
Semantic Versioning seeks to ease this picture by embedding notions of backward- and forward- compatibility into software version numbers. If a library maintainer adheres to it, then consumers are able to upgrade to newer versions of the library (say, to pick up bug fixes) without fear of breaking changes, provided they aren’t moving to a new, major version. In terms of backward- and forward-compatibility, Semantic Versioning creates an expectation that a given version of a library is forward-compatible with any future version up to the next, major release. A library is also backward-compatible down to the most recent, minor release (beyond which point consumers’ code might break if they are using newer library features).
There are several benefits to using Semantic Versioning. One benefit
is that it becomes easy to codify dependency requirements into
automated dependency tools. By assuming Semantic Versioning, users
of tools like NodeJS’s
npm and Rust’s
cargo are able to
specify dependency ranges rather than hard-coded versions. So if a
new release of a library comes out, these tools are able to decide
automatically whether or not they can be used in a given project. In
other words, Semantic Versioning creates an opportunity for downstream
developers to easily decide whether or not to upgrade to a new version
of a library, potentially picking up important bug fixes in the
Semantic Versioning As A Meta-API
Let me go back and unpack what I mean by calling Semantic Versioning a meta-API. As I said above, API’s represent a sort of contract between library maintainers and downstream consumers. Semantic Versioning then represents a sort of contract-about-the-contract. It’s an agreement regarding when and how the API will change. In a situation where Semantic Versioning is the de facto norm, as it is in the language ecosystems mentioned above, a maintainer who chooses not to follow it is breaking this contract, creating the risk of needless downstream breakage.
Because Semantic Versioning requires more contextual knowledge than any compiler or tool chain can boast, the process is largely manual. This means mistakes happen, and breaking changes are introduced without rolling the major version number. Responsible maintainers will own such mistakes and issue bug fixes to correct them, implicitly acknowledging that the meta-API is as important as the API itself.
Other maintainers aren’t as interested as Semantic Versioning, and seem to view it as a sort of straight jacket they would rather break free of than a tool to promote software stability. These folks fight against their tool chains, and indeed their entire language ecosystems, arguing that Semantic Versioning doesn’t work for them and they should be free to work however they want. Some of their arguments are likely stronger than others, but none of them will be ultimately compelling.
If you work in a language ecosystem where Semantic Versioning is the de facto norm, where violating it can wreak havoc downstream, then please play nice and follow its dictates. Instead of viewing it as a straight jacket, try to see it as an algorithm to determine what your next release number should be. We should all like algorithms!
If you refuse to be persuaded, then understand I will will not work downstream from you 1. I’ll find a different upstream to work with because I cannot trust you to create a stable contract. Your willingness to conform to the meta-API is something I will take into consideration in the future before adopting a library into any project that I work on. I wish you well; I hope you have fun; I’ll be sure to give you a wide berth.
I’ll note here that I’m more forgiving in environments where Semantic Versioning is not a de facto norm. ↩