See previously #30146.

CC @jayconrod

To reiterate from that discussion: the difference is mainly aesthetic and relatively arbitrary. Absent a compelling need otherwise, Go usually resolves aesthetic differences by picking one to use consistently (think of gofmt), not supporting both.

+1 to not supporting this. It's unfortunate that different systems have different standards for this, but supporting both formats would lead to ambiguity and confusion. For example, both vX.Y.Z and X.Y.Z might exist and point to different commits.

go release should probably warn against creating such a version accidentally in the future.

supporting both formats would lead to ambiguity and confusion

Note that there is a similar problem for build metadata, which we resolve (in Go 1.13) by resolving to a unique pseudo-version derived from the tagged version.

i think the ironic part about all of this is this bit in the semver.org FAQ
https://semver.org/#is-v123-a-semantic-version
In my case, we have an existing build system that handles repo versioning and tagging for us, using standard semver format (no v prefix). When one reads the go module docs about how it all works with a "standard semver format", and then seeing that it's not actually standard semver format, is a bit confusing. It also requires retooling some build processes that actually do follow the standard.

+1 cc @LucasRoesler @Waterdrips @stefanprodan - we were all hit by this today, we use semver but "the valid way" i.e. without a "v" prefix and dep was fine for us - we could have a proper tag in our dependency file, but now we're stuck with lots of v0.0.0 SHA in all our code. Was hoping that moving to go modules was going to be a pleasant, pain-free upgrade.

We don't want to change the tags if we can avoid it because semver itself recommends against no prefix and also, we rely on the numbering for Docker images.

We consistently use unprefixed tags X.Y.Z versions across all of the internal projects. Some of them are shared between projects and not every project is written in Go. This is really annoying requirement because it is not language-related but still ruining existing workflow.

Arguments like "you may have both prefixed and unprefixed tags in repo" is quite silly because if you do have such tags in your repo you probably have a bigger problem with your VCS already.

You may as well have very old commit tagged by higher version number and this also doesn't look right. You may have tags with same version and different metadata which is not used in version comparison too.

the difference is mainly aesthetic and relatively arbitrary.

@bcmills This is not aesthetic for projects that existed outside of Google (and companies that use prefixed tags) before introduction of go modules. It is messing up with build process.

Reference to gofmt also seems wrong here. gofmt is tool for Go language only and can't interfere with anything outside Go ecosystem, but requirement on git tags leads to unwanted changes.

Agreeing with the above. My company is highly polyglot among multiple languages but our release and tagging automation is reused between them. We implemented this logic using the "correct" semver way without the "v" prefix.

It will be an extremely bitter pill to swallow if we have to update our automation and [ideally] re-tag all of our repositories to add the "v" prefix because of one languages' requirement.

I'm in the a similar boat to @taiidani, trying to get a company to prefix with their already automated process with a v to satisfy the case for go FusionAuth/go-client#32

Another +1 - we started our project using X.Y.Z the official semver way, but consumers of our library are confused as to why the go.mod file ends up as v0.0.0-YYYYMMDDSSSSS-abcd1234

This does not feel worth introducing conflicts and confusion about which of two tags v1.2.3 and 1.2.3 is the correct one. Moreover, we definitely should not magically promote to versions existing unprefixed tags without any action on the repository's part, which would require yet another complexity axis (like the go.mod version).

About unprefixed tags being the "official" way, I don't think that's what the docs say. The semver FAQ explicitly calls out using v as a prefix for git version tags (not all git tags are versions), and this is the GitHub help sidebar in the release page.

A setting would have much of the same performance and complexity cost as gating on the go.mod version, as described above.

What about performance and complexity cost added by checking for existence of go.mod for prefixed tags in projects existed before go.mod?

The existence and contents of go.mod do not influence the choice of what tags represent a version, as far as I know, while the mechanisms proposed here would.

Anyway, the whole +incompatible migration was definitely complex and confusing. That was necessary to make modules happen at all. I don't think supporting multiple tagging conventions is worth nearly as much disruption.

I understand that there are projects that have strong opinions on the tagging scheme and that are inconvenienced by the scheme we picked, but I also notice that it looks like this is not a particularly common issue: the proposal currently has 23 👍, which puts it in page 8 of is:issue is:open sort:reactions-+1-desc. This is not a primary concern in deciding what to implement—they are not votes—but it's an indicator of how relatively widespread the issue is, which we need to keep in mind when considering changes that might affect all Go developers, directly or indirectly.

Thanks for explaining the underlying machinery that would need to be implemented, @FiloSottile ! Tactically, how should we go about handling repos where the vX.Y.Z requirement conflicts? E.g. I have a repo that has both Go and Rust subprojects, where Go is requiring vX.Y.Z while Rust requires X.Y.Z.

The existence and contents of go.mod do not influence the choice of what tags represent a version, as far as I know

Existence of go.mod does though. Correct me if I'm wrong but there's couple of comments there:

// The latest compatible version has a go.mod file, so assume that all
// subsequent versions do as well, and do not include any +incompatible
// versions.

// The latest release of this major version has a go.mod file, so it is
// not allowed as +incompatible. <...> so drop all +incompatible
// versions for this major version.

it looks like this is not a particularly common issue

Opinions based on github user base will be kinda biased. As Dave and you mentioned before, many projects already had prefixed versions but from what I understand this research was based mostly on github projects. And github slightly pushes you towards having prefix in version tag despite it being optional in every spec available.

Time also has a huge impact on this issue. Issue that Dave linked here is from 2015 but this one is quite recent. Go itself somewhat skyrocketed in 2016-ish. If you're just starting project, using any tag scheme is painless even mandatory one. It is relatively easy to change if you only use Go.
It is completely different story if you use different languages and if you have some kind of CI it may be inconvenient. Either at the same time or while switching from another language to Go. Projects impacted by this issue may be internal so pseudo-versions are good enough™ but that still cause inconvenience although it's impossible to know how much.

@mieubrisse

Tactically, how should we go about handling repos where the vX.Y.Z requirement conflicts? E.g. I have a repo that has both Go and Rust subprojects, where Go is requiring vX.Y.Z while Rust requires X.Y.Z.

Is there something preventing you from adding both forms of tags?

Is there something preventing you from adding both forms of tags?

It is kinda confusing, I'd say.
What are you going to do if you put v3.4.5 and 3.5.4 on a single commit by accident?
What are you going to do when you forget to add one of them?
How do you explain team members who do not use go or rust that they must place both tags from now?

Last one may not be applicable for this particular team, but adding responsibilities for people who don't even use go is not really a viable solution.

I think that we should support versions without v prefixes because Semver is an open, industry-wide standard. In this occasions I think we should always strive to support the open standard. Then we can say we support versions with a v prefix because there is a significant amount of people who use this convention.

At the very least I would expect to have one line of docs explicitly stating versions must be prefixed with v in the About page, and maybe avoid linking the semver website to avoid confusion.

I think that we should support versions without v prefixes because Semver is an open, industry-wide standard. In this occasions I think we should always strive to support the open standard.

But semantic versioning doesn't say anything about the v prefix. This is a Go convention.

And as I have understood FiloSottile's comments (notably #32945 (comment)), there are significant hurdles to overcome to loosen this convention. I surmise that, if this issue had been opened during the planning and development of modules, Go may well have supported both tagging schemes from the start.

Then we can say we support versions with a v prefix because there is a significant amount of people who use this convention.

Yes, but as explained in #32945 (comment), there do not appear to be anything like a significant number of people who experience significant issues interoperating with Go.

At the very least I would expect to have one line of docs explicitly stating versions must be prefixed with v in the About page, and maybe avoid linking the semver website to avoid confusion.

By way of reference, the tagging standard is explained here: https://golang.org/doc/modules/release-workflow. Personally, I don't think we're lacking clarity in this regard.

As has been discussed, we chose the v specifically to avoid problems with legacy repos that had old tags.
Now we wouldn't want to change that, nor would we want the possibility of two different conflicting tags for a given version.

Based on the discussion above, this proposal seems like a likely decline.
— rsc for the proposal review group

No change in consensus, so declined.
— rsc for the proposal review group