Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
Hey @rossabaker get in here :P I generally agree with you, and I feel that when a library reaches a certain tenure in its 0.x days, it sort of de facto graduates into 1.x status and should just be released as such. Ironically, Typelevel's policies towards stability and versioning probably contribute to the hesitancy of authors to do exactly this, because once you commit to a major version, you're really locked into backwards compatibility for quite a long time, whereas 0.x versions are only backwards compatible within a minor lineage. It also doesn't help that some libraries are quite stable and mature, but now lack a deeply engaged maintainer for various reasons. Skunk and Doobie, afaik, fall into that bucket. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
👋 Skunk 1.0 will be released shortly after fs2 3.13.0 which will come just after CE 3.7 for SN 0.5 support. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I've been using several libraries in the typelevel eco system and a lot of them are very good quality. However when "seasoned" JVM developers are contracted or hired one of their arguments to move away from Scala is that libraries are not "mature" by looking at the version numbers. In my opinion it's stupid, but I'm not the rest :)
For example skunk is at version 0.6 and doobie at 1.0.0-RC while I think the libraries are quite stable.
Having a library at >= 1.0.0 would imply the stability of the library
WDYT?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions