Is Semantic Versioning an Anti-Pattern?

If you are working in a really shitty software shop with no discipline or process control, this can be a great way to start establishing both, so I say no.

If you are developing your own personal website with a static page and bootstrap, probably over kill.

We don't need to have a polarized opinion about everything.

i don't like the scheme described in the article, but i do think that X.Y.Z is overkill. X.Y provides plenty of information and doesn't make me second guess if i should upgrade or not. Z often creates a false sense of confidence that shit wont break. changes in X always mean breakage, changes in Y mean potential, but unintended, breakage.

> the labyrinthine process used in Renaissance Italy to elect a Doge

I was very disappointed to learn that Italy did not, in fact, elect a Shiba Inu to office.

Rich Hickey's recent talk https://youtu.be/oyLBGkS5ICk?t=2790 tore into semver. Recommended.

This post completely ignores one of the most important features of semver, which is dependency management. Being able to do this is really great:

some-library>=1.0.0,It means I can include a library and get non-breaking changes and all security updates until the next major release without worrying that a change is going to break me randomly. It doesn't mean I don't need to do testing, but it makes it a lot more likely that I won't accidentally break in some way I didn't expect due to a change upstream.

When I want to upgrade to a breaking change release I know I need to go look at the release notes to see what the breaking change is, and then make modifications to my application.

If a breaking change is made in a minor or point release I can open a bug with the project so they can revert this change in the next minor or point release.

(edited from <=2.0.0 to <2.0.0, as this was my original intent :) )