Lots of things, but mainly that lemmy is pretty stable, and its been a year since the last breaking changes release.
I was also kind of opposed to a v1.0, and wanted lemmy to be considered alpha/beta level software, because I know when we release a v.1.0, people are going to expect the same enterprise-level and bug-free software from a ~4 person dev team as they do from a multi-million dollar company. Also it gives us less freedom to make breaking changes, which can be restrictive for back-end devs.
But now we can just adopt proper semver, and the next breaking changes releases can upgrade the MAJOR version.
On the other hand it gives an indication to client developers that such big breaking changes wont be a regular occurence. So they have a reason to upgrade and then keep using 1.0 long-term. I believe that practically all the needed breaking changes are already implemented, and remaining issues are mostly new feature requests which can be added as new api endpoints or parameters.
Lots of things, but mainly that lemmy is pretty stable, and its been a year since the last breaking changes release.
I was also kind of opposed to a
v1.0, and wanted lemmy to be considered alpha/beta level software, because I know when we release av.1.0, people are going to expect the same enterprise-level and bug-free software from a ~4 person dev team as they do from a multi-million dollar company. Also it gives us less freedom to make breaking changes, which can be restrictive for back-end devs.But now we can just adopt proper semver, and the next breaking changes releases can upgrade the MAJOR version.
On the other hand it gives an indication to client developers that such big breaking changes wont be a regular occurence. So they have a reason to upgrade and then keep using 1.0 long-term. I believe that practically all the needed breaking changes are already implemented, and remaining issues are mostly new feature requests which can be added as new api endpoints or parameters.