It’s ok, I’ll do it for you

- What is the version number of GitHub.com? = I don’t know

- Do you think the deployment version is an appropriate format to convey compatibility in a system of that size and complexity? = I do not

- Do you think it is deployed via a package manager like NPM or Bundle? = I do not

Even Github has APIs. They're numbered by date: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/about-the-rest-api/api-versi... I think SemVer would be better but they aren't guaranteeing anything so SemVer adds nothing. The date is not informative.

>Do you think the deployment version is an appropriate format to convey compatibility in a system of that size and complexity? = I do not

OK I wonder how GitHub does self-hosting, migrations, etc. I assume they have bespoke upgrade scripts to migrate, and you might have to run them in a sequence. That doesn't mean SemVer is inappropriate. It just isn't going to help much.

>- Do you think it is deployed via a package manager like NPM or Bundle? = I do not

Although the site might not be deployed this way, libraries that interact with it probably are and they probably use SemVer. The only real argument against that is that you can't tell the API version supported from an unrelated SemVer number.

> The date is not informative.

It’s not supposed to be informative. It’s not supposed to be parsed. It’s a version identifier. The date is much better than a commit hash or an opaque number for this.

Using semver for an external API is not a good fit at all. Compatibility is binary: it’s compatible or it’s not.

If it’s not compatible, it’s a new version.

Think on this a bit, and consider how this applies to a service as a whole, and you’ll finally understand what everyone has been telling you.

> That doesn't mean SemVer is inappropriate. It just isn't going to help much.

Irrelevant.

> Although the site might not be deployed this way, libraries that interact with it probably are and they probably use SemVer

Totally irrelevant.

>Using semver for an external API is not a good fit at all. Compatibility is binary: it’s compatible or it’s not.

Not true. You can be compatible with all APIs, adding no new features; you can add new features; and you can break existing features. These are the levels that SemVer can communicate. This makes as much sense for a web API as a binary library.

>Think on this a bit, and consider how this applies to a service as a whole, and you’ll finally understand what everyone has been telling you.

What all 3 of them? A vast majority of people prefer SemVer even if they detest the work that it generates. It's like a form of documentation.

Assigning semver versions to deployments makes about as much sense as your replies. Which is why nobody does it.

You don’t get it, seemingly by choice at this point. Good luck with that.

You don't version the deployment, you version the thing being deployed.

Lots of people use SemVer for web APIs. I think you clearly don't get why it is superior to TrunkVer. Good luck with that.