There’s enough cruft that is blocked on a major version bump that I think we should start discussing how we handle 2.0.
I think it’s important that we treat this as we would any other version. No breaking change we make should have a significant user impact. The only reason a change should happen in 2.0 instead of another version is because for whatever reason, it cannot have a deprecation cycle. The end result should be that updating to Diesel 2.0 should not be any harder than updating to any other version with
However, Pascal has rightly pointed out that it’s only been a half year since 1.0 was released, and people will get the wrong impression.
so, I’m personally fine with the major version bump because I know what’s going on and it’s just a number to me
but other people will consider this a sign that the API changes often and that they were right not to use it because 1.0 was just half a year ago…
So I think we need to answer two major questions:
- How long is long enough before we can release 2.0 without folks worrying?
- How do we communicate that the major version bump is because of our commitment to semver, and does not contain substantial breaking changes?