I think I see an inconsistency of semver.

[colomet]

MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and
PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.

between the introduction and the summary there are some differences.

Bug fixes not affecting the API increment the patch version,
backwards compatible API additions/changes increment the minor version,
and backwards incompatible API changes increment the major version.

[colomet]

what if is compatible with the api and not compatible with other code? like addons that use the code as a base and then increment an new functionality

[krzysiekpiasecki]

You cannot break API and expects not to break addons. So if addons are not a part of your API then they must follow this API.

[colomet]

what is a public API?

[krzysiekpiasecki]

Software using Semantic Versioning MUST declare a public API. This API could be declared in the code itself or exist strictly in documentation.

It depends on the software. How could I answer you for your question then?

[dret]

i think part of the problem here is that APIs do not exist in a vacuum. they exist to be consumed. and they depend on how they are consumed. hence it is critically important that consumption is well-defined, meaning that consumers must follow consumption rules. i call this "processing model" because it refers to how API consumers MUST process things. to me, any API not having a processing model is heading for trouble. here is a brief piece i wrote about this: http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2016/04/robust-extensibility.html

[jwdonahue]

@colomet, I am not sure what the issue is here. I suspect the crux of it may stem from the diamond point dependency problem, AKA: dependency hell. It's a very common issue with frameworks (plug-in architectures) that do not support side-by-side deployments of transitive dependencies, but the SemVer spec, while a small part of the solution, isn't intended to solve it. The intro/summary texts you referenced in your original post seem perfectly consistent to me.

Please either rephrase your issue or close it at your earliest possible convenience. Thank you.