transformers 0.4: change in accessor function exports?

[MightyByte]

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr at gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> I know, some of you may not want to hear this, but this will only bite
>> packages not following the PVP (i.e. those that didn't have upper
>> bounds)... transformers-0.4 was a major version bump after all, so it
>> *is* allowed to break the API (whether that was a good design decision
>> is a different discussion though)
>>
>
> Actually, in this case, I've seen some packages that *were* following the
> PVP get broken by this change, since authors didn't realize this would be a
> breaking change before releasing a new version of their package with a
> relaxed upper bound.

The PVP clearly communicates that if a dependency has a major version
bump, then you MUST test your package with the new version to
guarantee that your release will build.  Those people simply shouldn't
have released without testing.  Also, people not following the PVP are
very simply ALWAYS more prone to the kind of breakage we see here.

> I'd still like to come back to the question Felipe asked: why is the change
> from field labels to explicit functions considered an improvement?

+1 here.  I'm definitely curious about the reasoning.