Semver Is Wrong For Web Applications

Semantic Versioning (“Semver”) is a great idea, not least +because it's more of a codification of existing practice than a totally novel +approach to versioning. However, I think it's wrong for web applications.

Modern web applications tend to be either totally stagnant - in which case +versioning is irrelevant - or continuously upgraded. Users have no, or very +little, choice as to which version to run: either they run the version currently +on the site, or no version at all. Without the flexibility to choose to run a +specific version, Semver's categorization of versions by what compatibility +guarantees they offer is at best misleading and at worst irrelevant and +insulting.

Web applications must still be versioned; internal users and operators must be +able to trace behavioural changes through to deployments and backwards from +there to code changes. The continuous and incremental nature +of most web development suggests that a simple, ordered version identifier may +be more appropriate: a build serial number, or a version date, or +otherwise.

There are parts of web applications that should be semantically versioned: as +the Semver spec says, “Once you identify your public API, you communicate +changes to it with specific increments to your version number,” and this remains +true on the web: whether you choose to support multiple API versions +simultaneously, or to discard all but the latest API version, a semantic version +number can be a helpful communication tool about that API.

+ + + +

+ + +comments powered by Disqus +

+ + + + + +