The claim wasn’t that a code refactor is always a change in public interface, but that it could constitute a new major version. I listed two examples of when a major version should be incremented, the first being a change in a public interface, the second (erroneously) was a change in a private interface which I then clarified could only apply in the case of a more substantial code refactor, because as you pointed out (and I reiterated and agreed with), private interface changes don’t necessitate breaking changes. It isn’t an exclusive requirement that a public interface has breaking changes in order for the major version to be incremented, only that there be a new major version when that interface breaks introduces breaking changes.

I had to explain userchrome thoroughly in order to demonstrate that it is a public interface and differentiate it from the gui. I assumed it wasn’t intuitive because you missed it when I provided it as an example initially and was accused of avoiding that point.

The first sentence of each paragraph addresses which point it argues other than the userchrome demonstration which follows from the prior paragraph and only addresses your userflow vs interface question in its conclusion.

You are correct about private interfaces. When I wrote that I was imagining something more significant like a code refactor, but yes, obviously, changing something like an internal function definition would not require a new major version if it doesn’t change a public interface. Similarly, implementing a bugfix or new feature wouldn’t necessarily mean that an existing public interface was broken, or that the major version should be incremented. I didn’t intend to imply that.

I am using public interfaces in my examples because the original point was how SemVer can communicate at a glance to the end user the kinds of changes that were made (compatibility-breaking, bugfix, etc.) and I had the offhand idea to also communicate when the update was released by including the date in the patch number. I am not confused about what semantic versioning is or whether it can only apply to public interfaces or libraries. If I knew it was going to start an argument, I wouldn’t have mentioned backwards compatibility; it was an offhand comment tangential to the idea I was explaining. I could have just as easily said:

“I prefer the SemVer Major.Minor.Patch approach so I can tell at a glance if the update is a new feature release or is just bug fixes”.

I don’t think I skipped the question about Firefox interfaces. An interface I was looking at for backwards compatibility was in the example I provided with the UserChrome interface and I provided a specific example of a third party tool using that interface, the FireFox-UI-Fix project. Admittedly, this isn’t a strong example because the UserChrome customization doesn’t expose any functions to be called and doesn’t define any kind of protocol in a traditional sense. But that doesn’t make it any less of an interface in my opinion.

The UserChromeCSS customization feature is provided to the user by Mozilla for the purpose of modifying the browser’s chrome i.e. graphical user interface (note I’m not confusing a gui with a programming interface, they just happen to be the same thing in this example). In order to make these customizations, the user must be aware of how the browser’s gui is layed out, i.e. the user must know the structure of the HTML that makes up the browser’s chrome. If the user writes a gui customization which depends on that structure for one version of the web browser but then the browser changes that HTML structure in the next update, that constitutes a breaking change. In this example the interface is defined by the chrome’s HTML itself. The CSS written in the UserChrome.css references/selects that HTML and is thus dependent on the stability of that HTML in order to produce the same effects across different versions of the web browser. Third-party tools that distribute custom UserChrome.css files should therefore expect that their customizations be compatible across minor and patch versions of the same major version release. It’s not necessarily that the major version must increment every time this gui is changed, but when the interface for customizing this gui has introduced a breaking change (which in this case is usually synonymous). I think this is what you mean when you say “userflow”. If so, then no, I don’t think “userflow” is an interface. The userflow/gui happens to be an interface in this example because of the UserChrome feature that exposes the gui to modification through its own HTML/CSS interface, the stability of which is depended upon by both users and third-party developers such as the Firefox-UI-Fix project I mentioned.

As for other Firefox interfaces which would call for a major version increment upon being changed, there is the WebExtensions API for browser extensions, and the cli arguments that you mentioned. I don’t think providing an exhaustive list supports or invalidates any point or opinion I’ve stated. The major version number is incremented if any public interface changes, it doesn’t have to be representative of a single interface exclusively. An application can provide multiple public interfaces, where a library tends to be more singularly focused (maybe this is the source of our disagreement/misunderstanding?). An incremented major version just means that there is some breaking change(s) in some interface(s). Conversely, an incremented major version number doesn’t imply that every provided interface contains a breaking change.

If it’s your opinion that SemVer is better suited to a narrow API or library where a new major version exclusively indicates a breaking change in its singular public interface. Ok. That doesn’t indicate a lack of understanding SemVer on my part, and that’s not a requirement of SemVer. There exist applications using SemVer that expose multiple interfaces.

My suggestion is in compliance with standard SemVer as far as I can tell, but yes it is frustrating when apps use versioning that looks like SemVer, but make interface changes in Minor versions and don’t really adhere to SemVer.

Yes, especially for applications, and especially for Firefox. The Major version in SemVer increases with any interface change public or private (or it’s supposed to). This is important to communicate to users who rely on any 3rd party plugins, or who need to open files created with prior versions of the software, including configuration profiles.

Using Firefox as an example, I use the Firefox UI Fix. If Firefox changes their browser userchrome/layout, this mod breaks. But it is nice that I can tell at a glance when a new Minor version or Patch version releases that it contains no changes that break this mod. Any breaking changes in these versions are bugs in Firefox.

As for higher number versioning. I’m not advocating that Firefox restarts their Major versioning number back to 0. They could skip Major versions and call the next Major version 200 for all I care. The only thing my comment advocated for was including the date in the patch version number.

I prefer the SemVer Major.Minor.Patch approach so I can tell at a glance if the update breaks compatibility or is just bug fixes. Technically the Patch part can be any number as long as it increases each update of that same Minor version, so one could write the versions as AA.BB.YYMMXX where AA is the Major version, BB is the Minor, YY is the two digit year, MM is the month, and XX is just an incrementing number.

I think this approach has the best of both systems.

If you play on PC, you can use a hotfix injector to mod the cost of gold, diamond, and skeleton chests to be free.

Borderlands 3 Gold Chest

Borderlands 3 Diamond Chest

Wonderlands Skeleton Chest

There’s lots of quality-of-life patches and other fixes available too for both Borderlands 3 and Wonderlands.

The most convenient userscript for me is this one that automatically likes YouTube videos. It’s configurable to be able to: like the video after a specified watch percentage, ignore already disliked videos, only like videos from subscribed channels, and ignore livestreams. I like it enough that I’ve made a few pull requests to fix it when YouTube changes their UI.

When I have the time, I work on an in-progress local version to implement a few new features including: (1) Support for the YouTube shorts UI. (2) An option for a notification/toast to appear when the video has been liked. (3) An option to check the watch percentage continuously (mutation observer) instead of a user-defined poll rate which sometimes misses liking very short videos in playlists. Eventually I’d like to port something like this as a YouTube ReVanced patch.

Such unexpected behavior from a person who was unfaithful to their spouse and who brought a cameraperson into a public bathroom. I’m shocked (/s)

Really pushing her into the deep end, sink-or-swim style. I just hope Pelican Town doesn’t chew her up and spit her out too hard.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I thought decompiling with Ghidra was okay too, I may have just misunderstood the wiki article when I double checked post-commenting and crossed out my comment. I’m not entirely sure what comprises “proprietary techniques”. But I’m pretty sure that documentation needs to be provided in order to keep it on the legal side. Hopefully this project can come back and recieve continued support ala similar decomp projects.

I think the binary they distributed still included the art and sound assets; the users didn’t have to provide their own. And “clean-room” design is more than just providing source code. You need to provide a “paper trial” / commit history and documentation of how the final code was derived from the original code. My mistake, clean room is when you recreate the project without reading the original/compiled code at all. Specifications are written based on observed behaviors of the original user-facing program and new code is written according to that.

Maybe I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a way to release this while avoiding the issue of copyright? My understanding is that publishing “clean-room” reverse engineered code is legal. The graphics and sound can’t be redistributed, but you can distribute a tool to rip those assests from a ROM and let the users provide a ROM they own. This is what Ship of Harkinian does no?

This is worded better than what I said. The second round isn’t 1/2 because the door you initially picked was 1/100.

I was stubborn about this for so long, and I’m still not entirely sure I understand it, but here is a perspective that made me doubt my belief.

Imagine the Monty Hall Problem, but with 100 doors and only one grand prize. You pick one; it obviously has a 1/100 chance of being a grand prize. Then Monty reveals 98 doors without grand prizes in them such that the only doors left are the one you chose and one that Monty left unopened. Monty obviously arranged for one of those two doors to have the grand prize behind it. The “choice to switch” is really just a second round of the game, but with a 1/2 chance of winning (wrong, your odds change only if you “participate” in round two).

If you stick with your door, you are relying on your initial 1/100 chance of winning. If you switch, you are getting the 1/2 odds of the “second round”.

Apparently with three doors, switching gives you a 2/3 chance of winning, but I don’t understand the math of how to get that answer and I wouldn’t be able to calculate the odds of the 100 door version. I just know intuitivey that switching is better.