Immich 1.136 Photo and Video Backup Brings Breaking Changes
Immich 1.136 Photo and Video Backup Brings Breaking Changes
linuxiac.com
Immich 1.136 Photo and Video Backup Brings Breaking Changes
You're viewing a single thread.
28 comments
-
I've been meaning to give this a try on my Synology.
But breaking changes in a point release? Not cool.
-
Tbf this is actually version v1.136 .0 and
Disclaimer
- ⚠️ The project is under very active development.
- ⚠️ Expect bugs and breaking changes.
- ⚠️ Do not use the app as the only way to store your photos and videos.
- ⚠️ Always follow 3-2-1 backup plan for your precious photos and videos!
-
Personally I’m waiting for the day it comes out of “under active development” state so that I can migrate from NextCloud to it.
-
A breaking change should have been 2.0, not a new 1.
<minor>
release.It should still be 0.
<minor>
if they've not reached the stability for keeping backwards compatibly in all 1.x releases.-
To quote them:
We are still in a fast development cycle, so the versioning is to keep track of the progress/iteration of the project. When a stable release is reached (2?), then any breaking change would require more proper major version changes
-
Yes, I understand they have declared that. Their declaration does not, however, negate the common semantic versioning standards, found at semver.org. These common standards are significant for admins running shared systems where they automatic upgrade processes based on common semantic versioning rules. The software will stabilize and they will adopt a more stringent policy. But they should still be releasing 0.x versions since they've not yet reached it.
-
-
I was going to say you are wrong about semver but you are correct that it should simply not be version 1 yet.
To quote semver.org: “Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable.”
If they had just done that, their disclaimer would be implied. Once it is 1.0, breaking changes require a major version change. That seems like reasonable policy to me.
That said, I upgraded without issue.
-
🍻
-
-
-
From the release notes:
one of the last breaking changes we want to make before reaching the stable release milestone
So you'll probably want to wait until they do a stable release.
-
Yes indeed. 🙂
-
-
The “breaking change” did not break anything for me. As noted, you have to have a specific and non-default configuration for their to be a problem.
-
It's a full release, not a point/patch release, the title just doesn't show the second .0. They use semantic versioning so it's major.minor.patch.
It's also a very minor change and only affects a single configuration property and only people who used relative paths in that property.
-
Breaking changes should warrant a 2.0 version, not a 1.minor version.
Edit: I am basing my comments on https://semver.org/ guidelines
-
Immich isn’t a library (the main use case for semver is dependencies that will be pulled into other projects) and as far as I know they don’t state that they use semver.
-
But it is a service that clients connect to via an API.
-
The API specification is unaffected by this.
It only affects undocumented behavior, no documented behavior is being broken.
If you want to consider breakage of undocumented / unintended behavior as a major change, then every bug you fix would require a major version bump, since when you fix something you are essentially breaking compatibility for anyone who might have possibly relied on the existence of that unintended behavior.
-
You can argue the correctness or not of the guidelines put out at semver.org, but I don't think there's any room to argue that announcing a 1.x with a change the developers say is a breaking change, which is what Immich have done, fits within the semver.org guidelines.
-
-
-
-
It's not that kind of breaking change. It's a change that won't affect most people. Only those who chose to use a custom location for their media location and chose to set that to a relative path instead of an absolute one which caused the application to have trouble resolving the paths. The change eliminates a bug by preventing people from doing something that was not intended to be supported. So it's not a "breaking" change necessarily in the sense that they are changing documented functionality. They are eliminating a way that people can misconfigure the application which may in some cases cause the application to break if someone successfully configured the application in this unintended way.
-
-
-
28 comments