Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Its a focus on stability and we don't want you to be thinking about Vagrant either when you upgrade. We just want it to work. :)

However, I want to be clear its not a marketing tactic in any way (re: hosh below, with an excellent comment!). It ends up being that implicitly but we waited and developed Vagrant 1.x for 5 years prior to calling it a 2.0 because we had a lot of goals we wanted to achieve: multi-provider, fantastic Windows support, stable installers, etc. We feel we've now achieved that in a very stable way, so its time to call it 2.0.

This breakpoint for us allows us to begin planning and executing on larger changes. Of course, we'll do all of this thoughtfully since Vagrant is definitely a tool you want to "just work" today and not think about breaking your envs. I admit this does happen from time to time though and I'm sorry about that, but we're getting better.




The actual nature of the product itself is what ultimately matters, of course, and I hear your's is outstanding, so good work.

It's a less-important issue and just a convention, not a law, but normally v1.36.12 tells me "focused on stability and just working--boring but rock-solid", while 2.0.0 tells me "first release of great, new features--amazing but don't put too much weight on it yet". I wouldn't ordinarily think of 2.0.0 as the most-stable version of 1.x with 2.0.1 being the less-stable introduction of the great, new features.


I would think the opposite can often be the case. Usually a major version is where you get to remove a load of unused features since you can make breaking changes.


Removing features could itself cause issues, and when you put that with adding new features/backwards 2.0.0 releases are almost never as "rock solid" as a 1.0.0 with a bunch of minor/patch versions as long as you're using semver.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2021

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: