unity VS crater

This is more a coordination problem, semver doesn't really matter here, except as a good enough standard or guardrail for most. It's going to get broken from time to time, and that is fine.

The CUE Unity project is an interesting take on how to "solve" the bigger issue of breaking changes or regressions.

https://github.com/cue-unity/unity

Basically, the idea is that users can register their project, tests, or benchmarks in Unity. The project maintainers can then test new code against these projects before releasing, or even before pushing a commit, because a regression is found for example. This works by injecting the version (or local code) into the dependency management system. For CUE, this is a `go mod edit`, or setting up the environment with the cli at version / local. How this is set up and managed isn't as important as getting the process in place and making it an easy workflow for both sides. Hence why I call it a coordination problem.

yup, they reference it as an inspiration: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

it's probably impossible to automate an entire ecosystem, and there is value to enabling a tighter integration within a project ecosystem (a subset of the language ecosystem).

Rather than hypothesising about an imagined tool you could look at the actual tool which of course is in Rust's source code repo: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

> new proposed C++ changes - are checked against only easily and "well-known" accessible package.

Now that I have, so to say, shown you mine, lets see yours. Where is the tool to perform these checks in C++?

The "break things" part of "move fast" is not essential, Rust cares so much about breakage they literally compile and run the tests for every crate on crates.io and github using a tool called Crater. They do this just to test changes, even for stuff thats documented to be unstable, because thats just courtesy. And tooling makes it trivial to switch between Rust versions.

The bot's named Crater if you want to look into it more.

See https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

Rust compiler developers use a tool called Crater to test potentially breaking compiler changes on all crates (Rust's name for libraries) uploaded to the official repository. If plugin stability is the issue, maybe a solution along these lines would be better than merging these plugins to Neovim's core?

https://github.com/rust-lang/crater is the bot they use to test proposed compiler/stdlib changes against slices of the crates.io library up to and including "all of it".

The tool you're referring to is called Crater: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater.

I'm pretty certain this isn't actually true. You should look at the editions, etc. Rust also has an insane guarantee which I am certain C/C++ don't offer: It rebuilds its entire library ecosystem each time it ships to make sure nothing breaks (https://crater.rust-lang.org). I've never seen an instance were old code didn't compile on a new compiler. Rust isn't forwards compatible (new code compiles on an old compiler) of course, but what is?