According to this, the submission is fine: it's a major version announcement, unlike the examples given in the post, with significant changes, which rule out the “the diff between Foo 1.3.3 and the last time Foo came out is not enough to support an interestingly different discussion”
'Major' to the developers and users but the focus is on the total HN audience to whom it's neither major nor minor, it's simply another Bevy release post and there have been several of these very recently. It's a pretty straightforward release dupe, all sorts of seemingly 'major' releases from huge projects get categorized and moderated like that all the time. E.g.
Then why are you linking to a post where dang spends lots of tome explaining how the criteria is “Whether or not it contains significant new information (SNI)” if you believe this criteria isn't relevant?
Because there's absolutely zero doubt that this release matches this criteria.
I didn't say anything of the sort so I don't understand the question. The post looks like a completely routine release dupe to me and you can check that yourself by searching for your favourite projects with the search box at the bottom of the page. Both of the things you pasted say exactly the opposite of what you're implying, when read in their context
Here's "SNI":
That's one reason I'm using a silly acronym: SNI! — to convey that it's a specialized use of those words. When we say things like "this is not significant new information, so we're treating this post as a dupe", or even the gentlest, most watered-down and tiptoey version of that language, there are always people who feel aggrieved on the project's behalf, as if we're putting it down or belittling the hard work of its devs. This explanation is for those readers.
It's a made up term because it's a weird, made-up local meaning, it doesn't mean 'someone who uses the project might think it's significant'. So that's why I'm linking it, because it matches this submission very well.
> The post looks like a completely routine release dupe to me
It may looks like dupe to you, but it definitely doesn't fit the description of dupe given in the comment you linked to.
> It's a made up term because it's a weird, made-up local meaning, it doesn't mean 'someone who uses the project might think it's significant'.
Please re-read the comment you linked to, because it indeed defines what constitute SNI in a pretty clear fashion, and by this definition the aforementioned post definitely contains SNI.
Or maybe you didn't even both reading the actual post you are commenting, and because of that you fail to see how a “Bevy 0.14” post could contain SNI.
Now that I'm thinking about it, it's the most likely answer because I don't see how someone who's read the post could claim in good faith that it doesn't fit the description of SNI.
Even just the implementation of Unreal Nanite in Bevy by itself is well beyond this bar, and it's only a fraction of the diff that the post is talking about.
You've pointing a a “Show HN”, it obviously doesn't apply to other kinds of posts (or are you gonna limit OpenAI's announcement links to once a year too ? ;)
