Semantic Versioning is a way to define your program's version based on the type of changes you've introduced. It's defined as a three-number string (separated with a period) in the format of
Usually, it starts with 0.0.0. Then depending on the type of change you make to the library, you increment one of these and set subsequent numbers to zero:
MAJORversion if you make backward-incompatible changes.
MINORversion if you add a new feature.
PATCHversion if you fix bugs.
The version number in this context is used as a contract between the library developer and the systems pulling it in about how freely they can upgrade. For example, if you wrote your web server against
Django 3, you should be good to go with all
Django 3 releases that are at least as new as your current one. This allows you to express your Django dependency in the format of
Django >= 3.0.2, <4.
In addition, we have to take into account the following considerations:
- A normal version number MUST take the form X.Y.Z where X, Y, and Z are non-negative integers, and MUST NOT contain leading zeroes.
- Once a versioned package has been released, the contents of that version MUST NOT be modified. Any modifications MUST be released as a new version.
- Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything may change at any time. The public API should not be considered stable. But don't fall into using ZeroVer instead.
- Releasing the version 1.0.0 is a declaration of intentions to your users that the code is to be considered stable.
- Patch version Z (x.y.Z | x > 0) MUST be incremented if only backwards compatible bug fixes are introduced. A bug fix is defined as an internal change that fixes incorrect behavior.
- Minor version Y (x.Y.z | x > 0) MUST be incremented if new, backwards compatible functionality is introduced to the public API. It MUST be incremented if any public API functionality is marked as deprecated. It MAY be incremented if substantial new functionality or improvements are introduced within the private code. It MAY include patch level changes. Patch version MUST be reset to 0 when minor version is incremented.
- Major version X (X.y.z | X > 0) MUST be incremented if any backwards incompatible changes are introduced to the public API. It MAY include minor and patch level changes. Patch and minor version MUST be reset to 0 when major version is incremented.
!!! note "Encoding this information in the version is just an extremely lossy, but very fast to parse and interpret, which may lead into issues
By using this format whenever you rebuild your application, you’ll automatically pull in any new feature/bugfix/security releases of Django, enabling you to use the latest and best version that still in theory guarantees to works with your project.
This is great because:
- You enable automatic, compatible security fixes.
- It automatically pulls in bug fixes on the library side.
- Your application will keep building and working in the future as it did today because the significant version pin protects you from pulling in versions whose API would not match.
If you like the idea behind Semantic Versioning, it makes sense to follow the Angular commit convention to automate the changelog maintenance and the program version bumping.
Each commit message consists of a header, a body and a footer. The header has a defined format that includes a type, a scope and a subject:
<type>(<scope>): <subject> <BLANK LINE> <body> <BLANK LINE> <footer>
The header is mandatory and the scope of the header is optional.
Any line of the commit message cannot be longer 100 characters.
The footer could contain a closing reference to an issue.
docs(changelog): update changelog to beta.5 fix(release): need to depend on latest rxjs and zone.js The version in our package.json gets copied to the one we publish, and users need the latest of these. docs(router): fix typo 'containa' to 'contains' (#36764) Closes #36763 PR Close #36764
Must be one of the following:
feat: A new feature.
fix: A bug fix.
test: Adding missing tests or correcting existing tests.
docs: Documentation changes.
chore: A package maintenance change such as updating the requirements.
bump: A commit to mark the increase of the version number.
style: Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code (white-space, formatting, missing semi-colons, etc).
ci: Changes to our CI configuration files and scripts.
perf: A code change that improves performance.
refactor: A code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature.
build: Changes that affect the build system or external dependencies.
The subject contains a succinct description of the change:
- Use the imperative, present tense: "change" not "changed" nor "changes".
- Don't capitalize the first letter.
- No dot (.) at the end.
Same as in the subject, use the imperative present tense. The body should include the motivation for the change and contrast this with previous behavior.
The footer should contain any information about Breaking Changes and is also the place to reference issues that this commit Closes.
Breaking Changes should start with the word
BREAKING CHANGE: with a space or two newlines. The rest of the commit message is then used for this.
If the commit reverts a previous commit, it should begin with
revert: , followed by the header of the reverted commit. In the body it should say:
This reverts commit <hash>., where the hash is the SHA of the commit to revert.
Use tool to bump your program version⚑
You can use the commitizen tool to:
- Automatically detect which type of change you're introducing and decide which should be the next version number.
- Update the changelog
cz bump --changelog --no-verify.
--no-verify part is required if you use pre-commit hooks.
Whenever you want to release
cz bump --changelog --no-verify --increment MAJOR. If you are on a version
0.X.Y, and you introduced a breaking change but don't want to upgrade to
1.0.0, use the
--increment MINOR flag.
Use tool to create the commit messages⚑
To get used to make correct commit messages, you can use the commitizen tool, that guides you through the steps of making a good commit message. Once you're used to the system though, it makes more sense to ditch the tool and write the messages yourself.
In Vim, if you're using Vim fugitive you can change the configuration to:
nnoremap <leader>gc :terminal cz c<CR> nnoremap <leader>gr :terminal cz c --retry<CR> " Open terminal mode in insert mode if has('nvim') autocmd TermOpen term://* startinsert endif autocmd BufLeave term://* stopinsert
If some pre-commit hook fails, make the changes and then use
<leader>gr to repeat the same commit message.
To ensure that your project follows these guidelines, add the following to your pre-commit configuration:
- repo: https://github.com/commitizen-tools/commitizen rev: master hooks: - id: commitizen stages: [commit-msg]
When to do a major release⚑
Following the Semantic Versioning idea of a major update is problematic because:
- You can quickly get into the high version number problem.
- The fact that any change may break the users code makes the definition of when a change should be major blurry.
- Often the change that triggered the major change only affects a low percentage of your users (usually those using that one feature you changed in an incompatible fashion).
Does dropping Python 2 require a major release? Many (most) packages did this, but the general answer is ironically no, it is not an addition or a breaking change, the version solver will ensure the correct version is used (unless the
Requires-Python metadata slot is empty or not updated).
If you mark a feature as deprecated (almost always in a minor release), you can remove that feature in a future minor release. You have to define in your library documentation what the deprecation period is. For example, NumPy and Python use three minor releases. Sometimes is useful to implement deprecations based on a period of time. SemVer purists argue that this makes minor releases into major releases, but as we've seen it’s not that simple. The deprecation period ensures the “next” version works, which is really useful, and usually gives you time to adjust before the removal happens. It’s a great balance for projects that are well kept up using libraries that move forward at a reasonable pace. If you make sure you can see deprecations, you will almost always work with the next several versions.
On paper, semantic versioning seems to be addressing all we need to encode the evolution and state of our library. When implementation time comes some issues are raised though.
!!! note "The pitfalls mentioned below don't invalidate the Semantic Versioning system, you just need to be aware of them."
Maintaining different versions⚑
Version numbers are just a mapping of a sequence of digits to our branching strategy in source control. For instance, if you are doing SemVer then your
X.Y.Z version maps a branch to
X.Y branch where you're doing your current feature work, an
X.Y.Z+1 branch for any bugfixes, and potentially an
X+1.0.0 branch where you doing some crazy new stuff. So you got your next branch, main branch, and bugfix branch. And all three of those branches are alive and receiving updates.
For projects that have those 3 kinds of branches going, the concept of SemVer makes much more sense, but how many projects are doing that? You have to be a pretty substantial project typically to have the throughput to justify that much project overhead.
There are a lot more projects that have a single
bugfix branch and a
main branch which has all feature work, whether it be massively backwards-incompatible or not. In that case why carry around two version numbers? This is how you end up with ZeroVer. If you're doing that why not just drop a digit and have your version be
X.Y? PEP 440 supports it, and it would more truthfully represent your branching strategy appropriately in your version number. However, most library maintainers/developers out there don’t have enough resources to maintain even two branches.
Maintaining a library is very time-consuming, and most libraries have just a few active maintainers available that maintain other many libraries. To complicate matters even further, for most maintainers this is not a full-time job, but something on the side, part of their free time.
Given the scarce human resources to maintain a library, in practice, there’s a single supported version for any library at any given point in time: the latest one. Any version before that (be that major, minor, patch) is in essence abandoned:
- If you want security updates, you need to move to the latest version.
- If you want a bug to be fixed, you need to move to the newest version.
- If you want a new feature, it is only going to be available in the latest version.
If the only maintained version is the latest, you really just have an
X version number that is monotonically increasing. Once again PEP 440 supports it, so why not! It still communicates your branch strategy of there being only a single branch at any one time. Now I know this is a bit too unconventional for some people, and you may get into the high version number problem, then maybe it makes sense to use calendar versioning to use the version number to indicate the release date to signify just how old of a version you’re using, but if stuff is working does that really matter?
Another major argument is that people inherently judge a project based on what it’s version number is. They’ll implicitly assume that
foo 2.0 is better than
bar 1.0 (and
frob 3.0 is better still) because the version numbers are higher. However, there is a limit to this, if you go too high too quickly, people assume your project is unstable and shouldn’t really be used, even if the reason that your project is so high is because you removed some tiny edge cases that nobody actually used and didn’t actually impact many people, if any, at all.
These are two different expressions of the same thing. The first is that people will look down on a project for not having a high enough version compared to its competitors. While it’s true that some people will do this, it's not a significant reason to throw away the communication benefits of your version number. Ultimately, no matter what you do, people who judge a project as inferior because of something as shallow as “smaller version number” will find some other, equally shallow, reason to pick between projects.
The other side of this is a bit different. When you have a large major version, like
42.0.0, people assume that your library is not stable and that you regularly break compatibility and if you follow SemVer strictly, it does actually mean that you regularly break compatibility.
There are two general cases:
- The true positives: where a project that does routinely break it’s public API in meaningful ways.
- The false positives: Projects that strictly follow semantic versioning were each change which is not backwards compatible requires bumping a major version. This means that if you remove some function that nobody actually uses you need to increase your major version. Do it again and you need to increase your major version again. Do this enough times, for even very small changes and you can quickly get into a large version number
6. This case is a false positive for the “stability” test, because the reality is that your project is actually quite stable.
Here's a thought experiment: you need to add a new warning to your Python package that tries to follow SemVer. Would that single change cause you to increase the major, minor, or patch version number? You might think a patch number bump since it isn't a new feature or breaking anything. You might think it's a minor version bump because it isn't exactly a bugfix. And you might think it's a major version bump because if you ran your Python code with
-W error you suddenly introduced a new exception which could break people's code. Brett Cannon did a poll, answered by 231 people with the results:
- Patch/Bugfix: 47.2%
- Minor/enhancement: 44.2%
- Major/breaking: 8.7%
That speaks volumes to why SemVer does not inherently work: someone's bugfix may be someone else's breaking change. Because in Python we can't statically define what an API change is there will always be a disagreement between you and your dependencies as to what a "feature" or "bugfix" truly is.
That builds one of the arguments for CalVer. Because SemVer is imperfect at describing if a particular change will break someone upgrading the software, that we should instead throw it out and replace it with something that doesn’t purport to tell us that information.
A major version bump must happen not only when you rewrite an entire library with its complete API, but also when you’re just renaming a single rarely used function (which some may erroneously view as a minor change). Or even worse, it’s not always clear what’s part of the public API and what’s not.
You have a library with some incidental, undocumented, and unspecified behavior that you consider to be obviously not part of the public interface. You change it to solve what seems like a bug to you, and make a patch release, only to find that you have angry hordes at the gate who, thanks to Hyrum’s Law, depend on the old behavior.
With a sufficient number of users of an API, it does not matter what you promise in the contract. All observable behaviors of your system will be depended on by somebody.
Which has been represented perfectly by the people behind xkcd.
While every maintainer would like to believe they’ve thought of every use case up-front and created the best API for everything. In practice it's impossible to think on every impact your changes will make.
Even if you were very diligent/broad with your interpretation to avoid accidentally breaking people with a bugfix release, bugs can still happen in a bugfix release. It obviously isn't intentional, but it does happen which means SemVer can't protect you from having to test your code to see if a patch version is compatible with your code.
This makes “true” SemVer pointless. Minor releases are impossible, and patch releases are nearly impossible. If you fix a bug, someone could be depending on the buggy behaviour.
ZeroVer is a joke versioning system similar to Semantic Versioning with the sole difference that
MAJOR is always
0. From the specification, as long as you are in the
0.X.Y versions, you can introduce incompatible changes at any point. It intended to make fun of people who use “semantic versioning” but never make a
1.0 release, thus defeating the purpose of semver.
This one of the consequences of trying to strictly follow Semantic Versioning, because once you give the leap to
1.0 you need to increase the
major on each change quickly leading to the problem of high version numbers. The best way to fight this behaviour is to remember the often overlooked SemVer 2.0 FAQ guideline:
If your software is being used in production, it should probably already be 1.0.0. If you have a stable API on which users have come to depend, you should be 1.0.0. If you’re worrying a lot about backwards compatibility, you should probably already be 1.0.0.
When to use it⚑
Check the Deciding what version system to use for your programs article section.
- Why I don't like SemVer anymore by Snarky
- Versioning Software by donald stufft
These libraries can be used to interact with a git history of commits that follow the semantic versioning commit guidelines.