Semantic versioning? Too subjective.
Zero-based versioning? Better, but still too optimistic.
Negative versioning? Finally, a system that acknowledges reality.
Let’s face it—code is a liability. Every line written is a future bug, a future support ticket, a future "unexpected behavior" that some poor soul will have to explain in a meeting. So why are we numbering our software as if progress is real? Negative versioning is the answer.
Why Negative Versioning?
🔹 Honesty – Every new release makes things worse before they get better. Might as well admit it upfront.
🔹 Manages expectations – Users won’t complain about bugs in v-3.4.2 when they knew what they were signing up for.
🔹 Encourages maintenance – The only way to reach v0.0.0 is to refactor, optimize, and delete unnecessary code.
🔹 Reflects real-world debt – Your technical debt isn’t at version 5.0, it’s at version -5.0, and we all know it.
Special Numbering for Special Cases
Of course, sales teams still need a way to promise "game-changing innovations" that don’t actually exist. That’s where imaginary numbers come in:
🔸 v√-1.0.0 – A feature so ahead of its time it technically doesn’t exist. Perfect for roadmap slides.
🔸 vπ.0.0 – A feature that was estimated for this quarter, but will never truly be finished.
🔸 v-∞.0.0 – Legacy enterprise software. No one knows when it started or how it still runs.
With negative versioning, we stop pretending software is a smooth progression toward perfection and embrace the beautiful, chaotic mess that it really is.
Welcome to v-1.0.0. It's all downhill from here.
Top comments (0)