Misunderstaning of deprecated process #83

New Issue

GiteaMirror · 2026-02-17T11:10:32-06:00

GiteaMirror commented

2026-02-17 11:10:32 -06:00

Originally created by @bessarabov on GitHub (Jul 2, 2013).

Current version of semver (2.0.0) has the following specification:

7 Minor version Y (x.Y.z | x > 0) MUST be incremented if new, backwards compatible functionality is introduced to the public API. It MUST be incremented if any public API functionality is marked as deprecated

I was really surprised when I read this, because I was sure that if some API functionality is marked as deprecated and removed from API the major number should be incremented.

A bit later I understood that this text is only about marking API as deprecated, but not removing it for real.

My proposal is to add some line to the text to make it clear that deprecation is not the same as deletion.

Originally created by @bessarabov on GitHub (Jul 2, 2013). Current version of semver (2.0.0) has the following specification: > 7 Minor version Y (x.Y.z | x > 0) MUST be incremented if new, backwards compatible functionality is introduced to the public API. It MUST be incremented if any public API functionality is marked as deprecated I was really surprised when I read this, because I was sure that if some API functionality is marked as deprecated and removed from API the major number should be incremented. A bit later I understood that this text is only about marking API as deprecated, but not removing it for real. My proposal is to add some line to the text to make it clear that deprecation is not the same as deletion.

GiteaMirror closed this issue

2026-02-17 11:10:33 -06:00

GiteaMirror commented

2026-02-17 11:10:34 -06:00

@haacked commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2013):

Hmm, I'm not sure anything needs to change. You reasoned it out when you realized "marked for deprecation" means just that, it's "marked" but not "deleted". I think this is a common enough notion that we're probably fine with it as is. If more people show confusion, I'm happy to change my mind. :)

@haacked commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2013): Hmm, I'm not sure anything needs to change. You reasoned it out when you realized "marked for deprecation" means just that, it's "marked" but not "deleted". I think this is a common enough notion that we're probably fine with it as is. If more people show confusion, I'm happy to change my mind. :)

GiteaMirror commented

2026-02-17 11:10:36 -06:00

@bessarabov commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2013):

Ok. Thank you for thinking about this matter =)

@bessarabov commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2013): Ok. Thank you for thinking about this matter =)

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2026-04-16 09:58:39 -05:00

[GH-ISSUE #83] command line implementation #928

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2026-04-20 09:23:59 -05:00

[GH-ISSUE #83] command line implementation #1795

GiteaMirror referenced this issue