[FEEDBACK] Please don't make VRCSDK to 4.x unless as big breaking changes as 2 to 3.
complete
anatawa12
I heard VRCSDK for 2022 will be VRCSDK 4.0.0 unofficially on github issues.
If the VRCSDK 4.x doesn't have any breaking changes other than supported unity version changes, I think changeing name of VRCSDK to 4.0 is not good.
There are multiple reasons.
First, many VRChat users know that VRCSDK2 to 3 has big breaking changes which force creators to re-create a lot of contents.
So, renaming VRCSDK will prevent creators to upgrade VRChat SDK version even if it doesn't need big migration.
Second, many tools has Avatars 3.0 as a part of tool name including curated Avatars 3.0 Manager. Renaming such tools will cause a lot of confusion for users, so it is difficult.
Finally, most description of assets / prefabs says "VRCSDK3 is required to use this asset." Please don't break this statement.
Log In
Momo the Monster
complete
Thanks for the feedback - we've discussed it and we're going to use "Branding.Breaking.Bumps" as described here: https://ask.vrchat.com/t/developer-update-12-october-2023/20354#sdk-semantic-versioning-6
Momo the Monster
Thanks for voicing your concerns, anatawa12. I understand how SDK3 and the 3.x.x versioning has become synonymous. We launched the VPM versions of SDK3 at 3.0.0 so that it would be clear to creators that it was still SDK3.
The current internal Unity-2022-compatible VRChat SDK does have non-backwards-compatible breaking changes due to the move to .NET Standard 2.1 and possibly other factors, so we'll want package creators to test and update their packages to be 4.x.x compatible, and do not want to mix 3.x-compatible and 4.x-compatible packages automatically, which would be much more likely without a major version change.
Fuuujin
Momo the Monster: It needs to be communicated very clearly and at all channels possible then. Otherwise this can be major confusion to people who are not tech savy..
Momo the Monster
Fuuujin: Yes, I agree, we'll work on clarifying and explaining the change to get the knowledge out as best we can.
anatawa12
Momo the Monster:
I think it's good to use Branding.Major.Mimor instead of semantic versioning if you explicitly declare and follow the declaration.
I think Branding.Major.Mimor is less confusing for end users, who mostly doesn't know Semantic Versioning.
VRCSDK did breaking changes in minor versions and added new features in patch versions. VRC sometimes says please use
3.2.x
. For those reasons, I thought VRCSDK want to use Branding.Major.Minor as their versioning.Momo the Monster
anatawa12: Hm, that's an interesting interpretation and does seem to match the way we've been using it. We'll discuss this idea and consider it, thanks.
miner28_3
It's just VRCSDK3 v4.0.0
It's how semantic versioning is meant to work. Not renaming it will just cause more weird and stupid issues. I am happy that VRChat is somewhat trying to adhere to semantic versioning, it makes things easier.