# Please be mindful of version bounds and semantic versioning when tagging your packages

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708>\
**Category:** Community\
**Created:** [November 4, 2019, 6:53pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708 "2019-11-04T18:53:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BioTurboNick](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/bioturbonick/32/6380_2.png) [@BioTurboNick](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/BioTurboNick)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 7:08am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/41 "2019-11-05T07:08:32Z")

</div>

If it isn’t intended to be a common package for broad use, perhaps it shouldn’t be in the main registry? Doesn’t mean your work has to be closed at all, but maybe a different forum is more suitable for research products?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![yakir12](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/yakir12/32/297_2.png) [@yakir12](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/yakir12)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 7:19am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/42 "2019-11-05T07:19:04Z")

</div>

I just want to understand what the misunderstanding here is about:

- Everyone agrees that semver is a good thing.
- Julia’s eventual adjustments (in syntax or functionality) to semver are fine.
- Then the question is if we should:
  1. loosely remind people to adhere to semver
  2. build tools for semver adherence and build it into the package creation (e.g. automatically populate the `[compat]` section).
  3. encourage semver adherence by perks such as automated registration for semver compliant packages.
  4. downright enforce it somehow.

The disagreement is on where on that last enumerated list we should land. Do we have examples from other languages on how their adherence to semver and how they implemented it was a success/failure? I assume all of this is old news and that this has already been discussed on github or verbally.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kristoffer.carlsson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/kristoffer.carlsson/32/22_2.png) [@kristoffer.carlsson](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/kristoffer.carlsson)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 8:06am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/43 "2019-11-05T08:06:08Z")

</div>

> [@yakir12](#):
>
> Do we have examples from other languages on how their adherence to semver and how they implemented it was a success/failure?

Here is some stuff from Rust which people seem to like the package management in:

[https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html#the-version-field](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html#the-version-field)

> Before you reach 1.0.0, anything goes, but if you make breaking changes, increment the minor version.  
> After 1.0.0, only make breaking changes when you increment the major version. Don’t break the build.

This is the same as we do.

Cargo also forbids registering packages with “\*” (meaning any version).

> <https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1105-api-evolution.md>

might be interesting as well.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mcabbott](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/mcabbott/32/6603_2.png) [@mcabbott](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mcabbott)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 8:10am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/44 "2019-11-05T08:10:17Z")

</div>

> [@yakir12](#):
>
> 1. build tools for semver adherence and build it into the package creation (e.g. automatically populate the `[compat]` section).

Two tooling ideas I’ve not seen mentioned, but would be unable to write:

- When trying to add `[compat]` section, it’s hard to know what lower bounds to put. A much earlier version of some package you use very little of may well be fine. Should there be a `Pkg.down` command that does the opposite of `up`, so that you can test there, and figure out generous lower bounds?
- When trying to update, it can be pretty hard to figure out which package’s bounds are binding. Could `up` simply print a list of all packages barred from updating not by my Project, but by something I depend on? (I am picturing this being just one deep, not the whole tree.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kristoffer.carlsson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/kristoffer.carlsson/32/22_2.png) [@kristoffer.carlsson](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/kristoffer.carlsson)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 8:15am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/45 "2019-11-05T08:15:25Z")

</div>

> [@chakravala](#):
>
> basically, I only tag releases as a courtesy so that other people with less time on their hands can keep up with my work in computer algebra…
> 
> if the Julia community does not want to accept my tag, then that’s up to you I guess
> 
> If the Julia community expects some kind of enterprise support for my package releases, please consider paying me for that service.

The Julia community provides and maintains the General registry as a service, free of charge, for you to register your package in. In order to use it, you have to agree with the standards the Julia open-source community has established (for example considering package naming). If you do not accept the community standards for the General registry it is very easy to create your own registry.

These policies are, of course, not set in stone and are an attempt to provide a good experience both for authors and users when using the package management.

> [@chakravala](#):
>
> If other people consider my packages important enough to adhere to some enterprise guidelines, then they ought to pay me for my service.

This has nothing to do with the importance of your package since the same policy applies to all packages. The General registry provides a service to the users of it, and we want that service to work well which necessitates some sort of policy making.

The type of argument “pay me to adhere to the Julia community established guidelines for automatic package merging” is unlikely to bring you much good-will (nor income).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fredrikekre](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/fredrikekre/32/1688_2.png) [@fredrikekre](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/fredrikekre)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 8:25am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/46 "2019-11-05T08:25:38Z")

</div>

> [@chakravala](#):
>
> basically, I only tag releases as a courtesy so that other people with less time on their hands can keep up with my work in computer algebra…

Well, why didn’t you just admit this from the start? That you are only trying to make things easy for yourself instead of pretending you follow a much better path.

Also, you seem to base your reasoning on things that are not correct, e.g. here, where you (seem to?) think that adding bounds to a new release retroactively adds the same bounds on previous releases:

> [@fredrikekre](#):
>
> > You are wrong, I have previously tagged releases in the new registry and have seen what happens.
> > 
> > What happens is that in the registry all previous version get the bounds added. Try it, you’ll see.
> > 
> > Since the registry entries get updated, when somebody updates their registry, they get the bounds.
> 
> I’m not wrong.

And also, when presented with an actual example ([Please be mindful of version bounds and semantic versioning when tagging your packages - #29 by fredrikekre](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/29)), you didn’t explain and/or answer how you would solve that problem.

> [@mohamed82008](#):
>
> This kind of situation can cause long and sometimes unnecessary breakage time if package `B` did not really break `A1` , `A3` , `A4` , etc. I think a big part of this is psychological, where fixing things because they are broken is seen as time well spent whereas putting in time just to make sure things are still working is seen as a waste of time by some, especially if it could be avoided in those near-miss cases.

But at least there _a_ state that is proven to work. That might not include beeing on the latest version of every dependency, but at least it is something working. The opposite would be that users just get some random version that claims to be compatible with everything.

> [@mohamed82008](#):
>
> You are assuming that one of the users of my package `A1` has enough experience to figure out that the compat of `B` in `A1` needs to be bumped up, and then made a PR. I think this assumption is only true for a relatively small subset of core packages and other lucky packages that are used by Julia programmers who know what they are doing. Even figuring this out might be a difficult task for good Julia programmers who are not familiar with the code base of `A1` , and then there is `A3` , `A4` , etc. also to check.

Okay, so say I am completely new user and know nothing about versions etc. I decide to test out some of these packages: `pkg> add A1 A2 B`, and I get, say, `A1@1`, `A2A1@2`, `BA1@3`. Cool! I can start writing Julia code now!  
Turns out there exist `A1@2`, which I am happily unaware of. Now, if it turns out I do need `A1@2`, I try to add it and get a resolver error message (admittedly these can be better, see [Better resolver failure messages · Issue #819 · JuliaLang/Pkg.jl · GitHub](https://github.com/JuliaLang/Pkg.jl/issues/819), but at least I have something to report). So since I am a new user and don’t understand why, I raise an issue with `A1`: _Hey, why can I now use `A1@2` here?_. Hopefully it is still a maintained package, and the problem can be resolved.

Consider now the case with no bounds; I try again `pkg> add A1 A2 B`, but this time I get `A1@2`, `A2A1@2`, `BA1@3`. I start writing code, nothing works.  
As a new user, where do I raise an issue? I don’t know. Lets file an issue with `A1`. What do you as a maintainer of `A1` tell this user? _What versions of the dependencies do you have?_ Well, I just use what I got from the resolver, that you as the maintainer told the registry you were compatible with. _Ok, but I just hoped nothing would break. You need to add this package at that version, and that other package on that version. Can you try that?_

That does not seem more user-friendly to me.

* * *

> [@mcabbott](#):
>
> When trying to add `[compat]` section, it’s hard to know what lower bounds to put. A much earlier version of some package you use very little of may well be fine. Should there be a `Pkg.down` command that does the opposite of `up` , so that you can test there, and figure out generous lower bounds?

Yea, but putting the latest (SemVer) breaking release there is never wrong, after all, it is unlikely that your package works with more than one or two breaking versions of your dependency, so it is not that hard to test. If you (or your users) feels it is important that the package also work with older releases of that dependency they can fix that. See also [Introduce `down` as opposite of `up` · Issue #1062 · JuliaLang/Pkg.jl · GitHub](https://github.com/JuliaLang/Pkg.jl/issues/1062)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kristoffer.carlsson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/kristoffer.carlsson/32/22_2.png) [@kristoffer.carlsson](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/kristoffer.carlsson)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 8:29am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/47 "2019-11-05T08:29:15Z")

</div>

I want to point out that the current state of affairs have to be the _default_ because it is the one that keeps code working. However, it does not mean that we can’t have:

- Flags to Pkg to “turn off the resolver” or give other hints to it. `pkg> add A B C --force-latest` or something
- Better tooling to run automatic test on packages that would get upper bounded when a new SemVer incompatible version is registered.
- Better error messages to more clearly describe the problem and how one can go about fixing it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kristoffer.carlsson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/kristoffer.carlsson/32/22_2.png) [@kristoffer.carlsson](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/kristoffer.carlsson)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 9:06am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/48 "2019-11-05T09:06:46Z")

</div>

Just as a side note, an interesting thing to consider is that the feedback from doing something like this (keep code working but with some drawbacks in some cases) will, almost by construction, only be negative. The reason is that you will never hear from someone saying “I added packages `A`, `B` and `C` and it just worked” because that is just doing what they expect and no one is going to write a discourse post about a system behaving according to expectation. You will _only_ hear from people where they e.g. wanted to use the latest feature in `C` but that didn’t get installed because `B` wasn’t compatible with it.

It is in my opinion important to keep these type of asymmetries in consideration when listening to feedback (not to diminish any feedback given in this thread).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![StevenSiew](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stevensiew/32/218393_2.png) [@StevenSiew](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StevenSiew)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 9:28am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/49 "2019-11-05T09:28:49Z")

</div>

I have been thinking about this after reading all the comments here and there are a lot of comments.

And I have found the perfect solution for everyone which is guaranty to work. There are of course a few rules to follow:

But first, the solution.

The solution is that this is a FALSE PROBLEM. It is not really a problem if you think clearly about this.

The solution is “Package Namespace is infinite but people argue about artificial scarcity.”

Here is the solution

1. Name your packages PackageName0001 (eg. OffsetArrays0001.jl )
2. Maintain Forward Compatibility at all cost
3. If you cannot maintain Forward Compatibility then create a new package called PackageName0002 (eg. OffsetArrays0002.jl )

This way a Julia environment can have both module OffsetArrays0001 and module OffsetArrays0002 at the same time. No more issues with Package B0001 breaking Package A0001.

Steven Siew

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mauro3](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/mauro3/32/292_2.png) [@mauro3](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mauro3)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 9:52am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/50 "2019-11-05T09:52:20Z")

</div>

It does create other problems though. Consider your package is using two packages `A` and `B` which depend of `OffsetArrays0001.jl` and `OffsetArrays0002.jl`. Now your package gets an `OffsetArray` from `A` and one from `B` and wants to add them: that does not work because those two are different types: `OffsetArrays0001.OffsetArray` and `OffsetArrays0002.OffsetArray`.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kristoffer.carlsson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/kristoffer.carlsson/32/22_2.png) [@kristoffer.carlsson](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/kristoffer.carlsson)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 9:57am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/51 "2019-11-05T09:57:52Z")

</div>

> [@StevenSiew](#):
>
> Here is the solution
> 
> 1. Name your packages PackageName0001 (eg. OffsetArrays0001.jl )
> 2. Maintain Forward Compatibility at all cost
> 3. If you cannot maintain Forward Compatibility then create a new package called PackageName0002 (eg. OffsetArrays0002.jl )

[![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/original/3X/1/6/164f6078294275df6665ecd21cdafad30f8950cb.jpeg "Spec-ulation Keynote - Rich Hickey") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk&t=1944)

argues similarly in that a breaking version is effectively the same as to just rename the package.

The whole video is a good watch for people interesting in these things.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![StevenSiew](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stevensiew/32/218393_2.png) [@StevenSiew](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StevenSiew)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 9:58am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/52 "2019-11-05T09:58:38Z")

</div>

mauro3, you are right. I didn’t think about that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![heliosdrm](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/heliosdrm/32/3851_2.png) [@heliosdrm](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/heliosdrm)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 11:33am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/53 "2019-11-05T11:33:17Z")

</div>

I would like to highlight the constructive advice of the original post, which solves the greatest part of the conflict between adding or not adding upper compat bounds:

> [@ExpandingMan](#):
>
> When developing your code, I strongly recommend commenting out the `compat` section _entirely_ so that you are running on all the latest releases. Then, when it comes time to tag a release, you can check what versions of everything is getting used and put them in.

If you usually keep the compat section commented out in master, and have a suitable test suit, you may be aware at any time of compatibility issues with the latest package versions – and even approaching Julia versions, e.g. when Julia 2.0 becomes available for Travis to check. You fix it when errors happen, otherwise you rest.

Now, **if** you want to have a version registered in `General` (and get it registered automatically, without waiting for its maintainers to review it), you make a commit adding those compat bounds, and call JuliaRegistrator to `register` it. Then make another commit removing the compat bounds – and increasing the version number to make it unambiguous, so that master comes back to the “development”, no-guarantee status.

Notice the _if_ of the previous statement. Packages can live without the services of the General registry. My understanding is that General wants to provide guarantees of packages not breaking due to major version changes in dependencies – if SemVer is followed – paying the cost of requiring major updates of dependent packages that might have not been needed. But users that do not need that guarantee, and can live in untested, bleeding-edge package environments, may choose clone the package straight from the original repository – or even from other registries that may have other policies. It is as easy as giving the suitable address to the package manager when you `add`.

On the other hand, there is the extra burden for package maintainers that do want to have registered versions of their packages installable with the latest compatible dependencies. It’s not that much, and the community can assist, as has already been pointed out.

And I daresay could be automated too. Safe compat bounds can be found out from the package’s `Manifest.toml` in a status where the tests pass. If I’m one of those package maintainers that make the development without compat bounds, my local installation of the package will normally be sync’d with master – i.e. without bounds --. There might be a tool that detects major updates of its dependencies, runs my package’s tests when those updates are installed, and if the tests succeed, makes those two commits (one adding the compat bounds and the next one reverting them), plus a PR to the repo that the maintainer can use to request the registration

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tamas\_Papp](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tamas_papp/32/25949_2.png) [@Tamas\_Papp](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Tamas_Papp)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 11:42am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/54 "2019-11-05T11:42:15Z")

</div>

> [@heliosdrm](#):
>
> And I daresay could be automated too. Safe compat bounds can be found out from the package’s `Manifest.toml` in a status where the tests pass

Maybe you missed it, but I think that

> **[GitHub - JuliaRegistries/CompatHelper.jl: Automatically update the \[compat\]...](https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/CompatHelper.jl)**
>
> Automatically update the \[compat\] entries for your Julia package's dependencies - GitHub - JuliaRegistries/CompatHelper.jl: Automatically update the \[compat\] entries for your Julia package'...

mentioned above should solve this whole issue in a much more streamlined way.

Generally, I think that it should be understood that even if the recommended approach for handling version compatibility looks cumbersome, a lot of it can and actually will be automated and streamlined. It’s just the tooling is also recently developed (or possibly WIP in some cases) and we need to get used to it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![heliosdrm](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/heliosdrm/32/3851_2.png) [@heliosdrm](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/heliosdrm)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 11:50am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/55 "2019-11-05T11:50:59Z")

</div>

Yes, I had missed it!  
Thanks!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsrock](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/rsrock/32/115_2.png) [@rsrock](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/rsrock)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 1:53pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/56 "2019-11-05T13:53:44Z")

</div>

> [@fredrikekre](#):
>
> Consider now the case with no bounds; I try again `pkg> add A1 A2 B` , but this time I get `A1@2` , `A2A1@2` , `BA1@3` . I start writing code, nothing works.  
> As a new user, where do I raise an issue? I don’t know. Lets file an issue with `A1` . What do you as a maintainer of `A1` tell this user? _What versions of the dependencies do you have?_ Well, I just use what I got from the resolver, that you as the maintainer told the registry you were compatible with. _Ok, but I just hoped nothing would break. You need to add this package at that version, and that other package on that version. Can you try that?_

Not hypothetical. This is what is happening right now. Updating breaks things in weird and wonderful ways, instead of clear and easily fixed ways.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![StefanKarpinski](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stefankarpinski/32/24_2.png) [@StefanKarpinski](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StefanKarpinski)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 2:02pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/57 "2019-11-05T14:02:44Z")

</div>

> [@mohamed82008](#):
>
> If the bug fix or feature in `A2` is critical for the user, and if the user doesn’t have enough skill, time or money to either fix the issues in `A1` , `A3` , `A4` , etc. themselves or pay someone else to fix them, then this problem is indeed catastrophic for that user.

Bug fixes should always be available in patch releases that are compatible with the same things as you’re currently using. So that only leaves the new feature case. Users who lack time, skill or money to assist will, of course have to wait for new features, but that seems unavoidable. After all, those people are literally contributing nothing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chakravala](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/chakravala/32/6832_2.png) [@chakravala](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/chakravala)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 3:03pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/58 "2019-11-05T15:03:38Z")

</div>

> [@fredrikekre](#):
>
> Well, why didn’t you just admit this from the start? That you are only trying to make things easy for yourself instead of pretending you follow a much better path.

I am not pretending anything, I am just myself, if you got a problem with that, that’s your problem.

> [@kristoffer.carlsson](#):
>
> The type of argument “pay me to adhere to the Julia community established guidelines for automatic package merging” is unlikely to bring you much good-will (nor income).

The guidelines you are asking me to follow are extra work, which I am not willing to attend to unless I am paid for enterprise reliability services.

This has nothing to do with trying to bring good will or income, it’s just a simple transaction.

If you expect a specific kind of long term reliability, then you need to pay me for tending to this guarantee.

So, can I get my release actually merged then? Or is everyone going to argue about this forever?

There are 3 options as far as im concerned:

- Either pay me for enterprise service to get reliability,
- tag my release with my preferred `Project.toml`
- quit making free releases

With a free release, and no paying for reliability, people should be grateful to use my software and send me bug reports or compat issues if they find them. That’s a reasonable transaction for free users.

If someone pays for external reliability, then I will make sure it is reliable ahead of time myself. Otherwise, i’d rather have my free users report the issues.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fipelle](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/fipelle/32/4772_2.png) [@fipelle](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/fipelle)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 3:21pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/59 "2019-11-05T15:21:29Z")

</div>

The upper bounds are useful for many developers.

@chakravala: if you do not want to use them, why don’t you simply set very loose upper bounds? You can update the bounds every time you release a new version, and provide the type of support you seem to be aiming for (i.e., driven by GitHub issues).

I am not suggesting you should do it (it seems bad practice to me). However, there is no need to be conflictual with this choice.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fredrikekre](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/fredrikekre/32/1688_2.png) [@fredrikekre](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/fredrikekre)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 3:23pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/60 "2019-11-05T15:23:59Z")

</div>

> [@chakravala](#):
>
> I am not pretending anything

Well, you argue for an alternative approach, but you have failed to explain to me why it is better; e.g. you stil have not answered my questions in [Please be mindful of version bounds and semantic versioning when tagging your packages - #46 by fredrikekre](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708/46)

> [@chakravala](#):
>
> The guidelines you are asking me to follow are extra work, which I am not willing to attend to unless I am paid for enterprise reliability services.
> 
> This has nothing to do with trying to bring good will or income, it’s just a simple transaction.
> 
> If you expect a specific kind of long term reliability, then you need to pay me for tending to this guarantee.
> 
> So, can I get my release actually merged then? Or is everyone going to argue about this forever?
> 
> There are 3 options as far as im concerned:
> 
> - Either pay me for enterprise service to get reliability,
> - tag my release with my preferred `Project.toml`
> - quit making free releases
> 
> With a free release, and no paying for reliability, people should be grateful to use my software and send me bug reports or compat issues if they find them. That’s a reasonable transaction for free users.
> 
> If someone pays for external reliability, then I will make sure it is reliable ahead of time myself. Otherwise, i’d rather have my free users report the issues.

But you not following the guidlines creates extra work for the registry maintainers. Are you paying them for that service? I happen to know that there are people that have spent, and still do when time allows, countless of hours each weak on their free time (without getting payed) on maintaining the registry.

[Previous page](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-be-mindful-of-version-bounds-and-semantic-versioning-when-tagging-your-packages/30708.md?page=4)