That is stupid though. It's like saying changing a private field in Java is a breaking change because someone might have used reflection to access it.
Taken to the moronic extreme: any detectable change is a breaking change because someone could write a function that pulls your latest release and depends on every bit being identical with the previous release.
> It's like saying changing a private field in Java is a breaking change because someone might have used reflection to access it.
Which is true, both in theory and practice.
Even look at misc.Unsafe - which is deliberately named unsafe and everyone was told not to use it. Then they tried to drop support for it and people freaked out so much that support was continued. (https://jaxenter.com/java-9-without-sun-misc-unsafe-119026.h...)
> Taken to the moronic extreme: any detectable change is a breaking change because someone could write a function that pulls your latest release and depends on every bit being identical with the previous release.
I would say it is best described here: https://xkcd.com/1172/