Mention changing definitons of functions or values as Breaking change about pvp HOT 7 CLOSED

I think this is consistent change, but definitions of functions or values aren't mentioned anywhere. Non-breaking change talks only about addition of things (good), for example.

from pvp.

This doesn’t make much sense to me.
Every simple refactoring (changing definitions of ⟨…⟩ functions or values), among many other things, would be a breaking change then.

from pvp.

from pvp.

@phadej I'd suggest to clarify the kind of changes by adding a couple more words:

Breaking change. If any entity was removed, or the types of any entities or the definitions of datatypes, classes, functions or values were changed in a semantically observable way, or orphan instances were added or any instances were removed, then ...

from pvp.

@hvr that introduces some ambiguity. Changing a datatype should always be a breaking change, no matter if semantics are preserved or not. I can't figure out if the current wording means that or not, so I propose:

Breaking change. If any entity was removed, or the types of any entities or the definitions of datatypes, classes were changed, or orphan instances were added or any instances were removed, or the definitions of functions or values were changed in a semantically observable way, then ...

from pvp.

So, what about I fix a little bug in the function. The type does not change, but the behaviour does change in a semantically observable way. As a library maintainer, requiring a major version bump for this does not feel right. OTOH, a major change to semantics or intended behaviour does warrant a major version bump (though perhaps a better way would be a new symbol, and deprecation of the old, otherwise users will get caught by surprise).

I support an explicit mention of this scenario in the PVP, because it is a common and important scenario that maintainers deal with. But the current proposal is too strong. I would ignore it and rely on my own judgement about whether a behavioural change requires a major version bump or not. It is better that the PVP would set a minor version bump as the minimum requirement, with an accompanying admonition to consider whether the change warrants a major version bump, and perhaps some examples.

from pvp.

I don't remember which particular issue triggered opening this. I don't find changing of error formatting convincing enough anymore.

from pvp.