What version should we use in package.json?

[PaulRBerg]

The version is currently set to 1.0.0, but I'm not sure this is good. Might it be better to have the Node.js version match the protocol release (i.e. 2.0.0)?

https://github.com/sablierhq/v2-core/blob/11a57870cf603895b5d70a950fead68651d35e2b/package.json#L5

[PaulRBerg]

I would love to hear your thoughts on this, @razgraf, @gavriliumircea, since the client app will be the leading consumer of these packages.

[PaulRBerg]

The vague prompt was intentional - I wanted an objective, non-biased answer.

What is biased and subjective in my prompt? I presented both solutions in an objective way to ChatGPT. I said we are "undecided".

Perhaps you meant to say that you wanted an answer for the general case - which, again, I agree with both you and ChatGPT that it's good to start from 1.0.0 when starting afresh, but that is not applicable to us given the existence of Sablier's history and the inclusion of a numerical version in the name of the release "Sablier V2" (which is a matter of fact, not of opinion).

[PaulRBerg]

I just realized another benefit of using 2.0.0 instead of 1.0.0 - keeping git tags and GitHub releases in sync with the release name.

It would be really awkward for the version tag and the release on GitHub to have a big title that reads "v1.0.0".

To this, you might retort by saying that we don't need a GitHub release. And yes, maybe we don't need one (I haven't made up my mind about this), but we definitely need a git tag for sharing URLs on social media.

[razgraf]

really awkward

Could you elaborate, why would it be awkward?

ChatGPT prompt

I'm very intentional with keeping prompts general, as you pointed out and objective with ChatGPT as it is very easy to influence. I ran your prompt through OCR and modified two things in the text

• switched the order of the arguments "one one hand / on the other hand"
• added a line at the end that includes the name of our previous package

I am however using ChatGPT-3. Would be interested to see if 4 keeps its recommendation with slight changes to the prompt.

Prompt	Response

---

At the end of the day you asked for our opinion so the tl;dr; is that I find v1.0.0 more intuitive as a programmer, while v2.0.0 may feel more intuitive as a general observer. You are of course encouraged to choose whatever makes most sense to move this forward faster. But in terms of thoughts, I think v1 > v2 in this case.

[PaulRBerg]

why would it be awkward?

Awkwardness is a second-order effect of all the reasons I have given in my previous replies.

In practice:

1. We tweet about Sablier v2.0
2. We link to the source code on GitHub
3. Wild "v1.0.0" tag appears as a URL preview

ChatGPT as it is very easy to influence

First, about the prompt. It's self-contradicting in the last paragraph (see explanation below), and I suspect this has confused ChatGPT.

Second, about the response. Even if the prompt had been logically consistent, we should use ChatGPT to buttress our position(s), not take what it says on faith.

One of the points it made in your prompt's response is "If you make a backward-incompatible change, you would release it as '2.0.0'", which runs counter to what you said above, i.e. "safe to leave major versions out of scope as a major version would imply a V3 (separate package)".

added a line at the end that includes the name of our previous package

Adding that line has made the last paragraph self-contradictory. There either existed a package or not. Nothing in-between.

What you perhaps intended to say is that while there has never been a published package @sablier/v1-core, we had a private package sablier. However, this is a red herring because the very topic we are discussing is publishing packages.

I am however, using ChatGPT-3

ChatGPT4 is a chad compared to ChatGPT3. I highly recommend you get the premium plan if you don't have it already.

Would be interested to see if 4 keeps its recommendation with slight changes to the prompt.

It does keep the recommendation after changing the order of the OT1H/ OTOH arguments:

Prompt	Response

you asked for our opinion

As I always do; progress is made through disagreement and debate.

I find v1.0.0 more intuitive as a programmer, while v2.0.0 may feel more intuitive as a general observer.

I believe v2.0.0 is more intuitive for (some) programmers, too, because of the git tag problem.

[PaulRBerg]

Given the above, I will consider the conjecture "v1.0.0 is better than v2.0.0" refuted, and proceed with changing the package version to v2.0.0 in #477 so that we keep it consistent with the release name, git tags, and so forth.

As ever, I would be happy to change my mind if you guys manage to refute the arguments in my previous comment.

[PaulRBerg]

I am coming full circle on this versioning issue.

Working on V2 Periphery has made me realize that my proposal to version the V2 Core package as 2.0.0 doesn't scale well, albeit not for the reasons discussed above.

The refutation is thus: we can keep a single package in sync with the protocol release name ("V2"), but we cannot keep multiple packages in sync using this approach. Versioning both V2 Core as 2.0.0 and V2 Periphery as 2.0.0 might work initially, but the packages will differentiate over time - what happens, then, when we want to update the ProxyTarget? The package versions will have to diverge, i.e., bump V2 Periphery to 2.1.0 or 2.0.1. Doing so runs counter to my approach of keeping the package versions and the protocol releases in sync. (note: there's a separate issue about whether a proxy target update should be called Sablier V2.1; I think not, but we can talk about this later)

Additionally, there isn't just the V2 Periphery package - there's also V2 Docs, and who knows what other V2-related packages we will ship in the future.

Therefore, I take back my proposal and will move back the package version to 1.0.0. We will address the git tag problem (which is still a valid problem) by not linking to the git tags directly; we will link only to the v2-core home page on GitHub.