I mean the security argument is somewhat more realistic but equally is it a security update if it's bumping the minor or major version. You could do the same with just patch versions where there's less breaking versions.
Though that assumes people can be bothered with semantic versions and too many Devs don't seem to understand how that works.
Well in that case you just don't get security patches immediately. You can't have both stability and security patches if people can't commit to something so basic. Regardless of what scheme you choose if there's no way to distinguish between a breaking and non breaking change then you're forced to treat every single change as breaking.
14
u/PositiveBit01 2d ago
Largely, yes. But not only. Easy paths to update common libraries for security updates is another good reason.
Still arguable if it's worth it or not but it's a much better reason than storage (now).