If the common storage type has to be changed (for example from string to int), a migration of content is perfomed together with any necessary update of the mapping code

With a well-defined versioning strategy, when releasing a non-backwards compatible version, you can keep the existing one and the new one working in parallel for a pre-defined window of time

you will need to accommodate backwards compatibility or support multiple versions of an API running in parallel

GraphQL APIs should prefer evolution over versioning, but overall, nobody has an absolute opinion about either approach

Pragma::Migration is an experiment at implementing Stripe-style API versioning.

The key thing about the REST approach is that the server addresses the client state transitions. The state of the client is almost totally driven by the server and, for this reason, discussions on API versioning make little sense, too. All that a client should know about a RESTful interface should be the entry point. The rest should come from the interpretation of server responses.

My understanding is that the caret is the answer for traditional SemVer, i.e., there will be breaking changes prior to 0.1.0, there may be breaking changes between minor versions prior to 1.0.0, and there may only be breaking changes between major versions above 1.0.0.

The TypeScript team has made it clear. They do not follow semver. "minor" (X.X) releases can contain breaking changes. Major releases (X) have very little meaning.

For better or worse, TS doesn't do semantic versioning; see #31761

Unless we choose to use the semver ju-jitsu of calling the changes a bugfix

Adapters are strictly versioned: any change to an adapter interface - associative or not - is considered breaking and will cause a major version update of the component.

I feel that with all that power that it’s gaining, instead of being a more approachable tool, that it’s actually being a tool that is continuously making people feel frustrated, to the point where I feel that whatever the next version control system is… (And it does not have to be something separate than Git. It should maybe be just a really powerful abstraction built on top of Git.) But I think whatever the next iteration of the people’s version control is… it should be something that is more reflective of how we think about what version control is for us.

The versions must be compatible, so if a peerDependency is listed as 2.x, you can’t install 1.x or another version. It all follows semantic versioning.

In the future, these attributes may expand without the API being versioned. The current attributes are:

Barbary K. 2014 sncosmo Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.11938

The earliest Terms of Submission

I'm a big fan of the approach that Stripe has taken to API versioning -