I don't think vim follows semver, although a lot of old unix software, and also Free Software, would use major version bumps to indicate compatibility breaks. Semver was in many ways the documentation of what a lot of software was already kind-of doing.
But vim was used as an example by the GP, so re-using it as an example to show what I thought was a sensible major-release schedule (instead of, say, coreutils, or glibc, or glib/gtk, or perl, or Qt, etc...) seemed appropriate.
> I don't use major releases as a means of breaking popular workflows. I use major releases even when there are very small breaking changes with minimal impact.
A breaking change is going to break someone's workflow. (See also, Hyrum's Law, xkcd 1172.)
As a user and developer, my preference is for breaking changes to be put off as long as possible, and then all applied together every few years or so. (Or never :-) That way, I don't normally have to pay that much attention to updates, even if an app gets new features. But when there's a major version bump, I can check the release notes carefully and know to keep an eye out for anything unusual/different.
If I only ever ran one program, it wouldn't be a big deal. But I don't, I run hundreds regularly. If they all have breaking changes once per year, that averages out to me needing to check over two sets of changes that might impact me every week.
Did you do what I asked and look at ripgrep's changelog?[1] The breaking changes are prominently advertised in each major release. Not all breaking changes are the same or have the same impact. Some major releases don't even have any breaking changes. (semver doesn't say to only do a major release when there's a breaking change. You can do a major release without breaking changes.)
I don't think you're correct about "old Unix software" using major version bumps to indicate compatibility breaks. Recent 3.x releases of GNU grep, for example, fucked around with the meaning of \d when using the -P flag. With no changes to the major version number. Did that break your scripts?
The thing about semver is that it tends to make breaking changes much more visible, which is kind of the point. And of course, when you compare it to projects that don't use semver and don't increment the major version for every breaking change, the projects using semver look like they're moving at a much faster pace. It might be true, but you can't conclude it by looking at version numbers when the projects aren't using the same versioning scheme.
I don't think vim follows semver, although a lot of old unix software, and also Free Software, would use major version bumps to indicate compatibility breaks. Semver was in many ways the documentation of what a lot of software was already kind-of doing.
But vim was used as an example by the GP, so re-using it as an example to show what I thought was a sensible major-release schedule (instead of, say, coreutils, or glibc, or glib/gtk, or perl, or Qt, etc...) seemed appropriate.
> I don't use major releases as a means of breaking popular workflows. I use major releases even when there are very small breaking changes with minimal impact.
A breaking change is going to break someone's workflow. (See also, Hyrum's Law, xkcd 1172.)
As a user and developer, my preference is for breaking changes to be put off as long as possible, and then all applied together every few years or so. (Or never :-) That way, I don't normally have to pay that much attention to updates, even if an app gets new features. But when there's a major version bump, I can check the release notes carefully and know to keep an eye out for anything unusual/different.
If I only ever ran one program, it wouldn't be a big deal. But I don't, I run hundreds regularly. If they all have breaking changes once per year, that averages out to me needing to check over two sets of changes that might impact me every week.