Rust core team has taken the approach of breakage without major version increments being acceptable as long as they deem the breakage "minor" (based on crates.io and companies they have close relationships to).
I don't want to relitigate this issue again, but that's not an accurate description of the policy. If you tell us that one of the changes in a point release broke your code, then appropriate action will be taken, regardless of who you are. No organization is given special privileges regarding breaking changes based on "close relationships" to the developers.
It is true that Rust, like all actively-maintained languages, can make changes that are theoretically breaking if all evidence strongly suggests that no code is actually going to break.
Qualifying with "close relationships to" is misleading, as every company using Rust is welcome to sign up to receive new versions of the compiler to run against their codebases to test for regressions. See the email address in my profile if you'd like to add your company to our list!
pcwalton|10 years ago
It is true that Rust, like all actively-maintained languages, can make changes that are theoretically breaking if all evidence strongly suggests that no code is actually going to break.
kibwen|10 years ago
MetaCosm|10 years ago
If I could go back and edit I would -- but it has been too long.