Developers are complaining that bug fixes are being released in .NET 8 but not 7? Why would they be?
.NET 7 isn’t an LTS and the major version upgrades rarely introduce anything breaking so upgrading should be seamless. So why would anyone be desperate to cling on to 7?
Probably because 8 doesn’t come out for several months, and they want the fixes now.
Some projects can’t afford full regression tests or work to upgrade stuff to the latest and greatest. Production projects are handled differently than personal projects with less than one nine reliability.
Any production project, especially with that sort of rigor, should be sticking to the LTS releases. IMO there is no project that should be on 7 with no plans to upgrade to 8 after it’s released.
If a version upgrade is out of scope, then it should’ve been built on 6 to begin with.
Any production project, especially with that sort of rigor (…)
There is no rigour. There is semantic versioning, patch/bugfix releases, the understanding that stability trumps the latest and greatest, and not having an infinite budget to perpetually work on maintaining projects with unbounded resources, including full regression tests.
Those who care about what they deliver also care about stability.
If a version upgrade is out of scope (…)
It’s a major version bump, which is expected to include breaking changes. Professional teams are mindful of resource allocation. Not everyone works exclusively on personal projects.
There is no way around this.
do you even .net? “stability trumps the latest and greatest”, that’s exactly what who you’re replying to said. If one is making the choice to use 7 in the context of stability, then one has already planned an upgrade to 8 upon release; otherwise stick to 6.
do you even .net?
Yes, I do. Do you?
that’s exactly what who you’re replying to said.
Not really. Stability does not mean consuming a package that’s supported for a long time. Stability is a function of the work you put into your project. You can consume all the LTS stuff you can think of, and still release an unstable mess.
In this case, being forced to undergo a major version upgrade without being able to do full regression tests is exactly how you get your projects to break, no matter how many LTS dependencies you consume.
The whole point of this thread is that it’s preferable to consume bug fixes in patch releases than being forced to undergo major version upgrades. Do you disagree?
being forced to undergo a major version upgrade without being able to do full regression tests is exactly how you get your projects to break, no matter how many LTS dependencies you consume
that’s exactly what’s already being said. First, there’s only one LTS change even being discussed, e.g. no one is talking about moving from 6 to 8 or back porting from an upcoming 8 to 6. Second, if your not going to be bothered with the very preparations your mentioning should be made when choosing 7, then one should choose 6.
The whole point of this thread is that it’s preferable to consume bug fixes in patch releases than being forced to undergo major version upgrades. Do you disagree?
Fundamentally, if I enter into a contract of using 7 then I understand sets of bugfixes won’t necessarily be back ported.
First, there’s only one LTS change even being discussed, e.g. no one is talking about moving from 6 to 8 or back porting from an upcoming 8 to 6.
It sounds you lost track of the discussion. OP clearly pointed out the scenario of being forced to upgrade to 8 instead of sticking with 7.
I don’t think it’s worth to continue discussing this. Apparently you’re arguing without context and in the process talking besides the point.