The concern isn't that the pace of breaking changes will mean Rust breaks sem-versioning but that the duration between Rust 1x and 2x will be short. In practice, it doesn't make a difference what number is assigned to a release if the major stability turns out to be short.
Can you comment on that -- possibly entirely incorrect -- concern I have about Rust's development? Are we going to see Rust 2.x popping up in six months?
We have no current timeline for a 2.0. It certainly will not be on the order of months, I would prefer on the order of a decade, I'd bet on the order of years.
Furthermore, and this is speculation, since again, we haven't talked about it as a group, but I wouldn't imagine a Rust 2.0 where it's like breaking changes are today. I would imagine a very long period of deprecations, a nice upgrade path, and all that jazz. Nobody likes when the entire world changes out from under them all at once, and sudden, massive changes are something we're trying to avoid with the release train model.
Can you comment on that -- possibly entirely incorrect -- concern I have about Rust's development? Are we going to see Rust 2.x popping up in six months?