It's just not what the word axiom means nor how anyone uses it. An axiom is unprovable by definition - is it a thing we accept to be true because it is useful to do so (e.g. there exists an empty set)
"Provably Correct Axiom" is nonsense. An axiom is unprovable.
Just "provably correct" would've been fine. This chess stuff is hilariously pretentious.
What if the patch for the buggy `2.14.0` library was released as `3.0.0`? In semver MAJOR can be a superset of MINOR and PATCH, so this is a perfectly logical semver operation.
You still have the exact same problem you described with `^2.14.0`. Someone would have to manually update the package to get the security fix in 3.0.0.
Unless you're suggesting code should also automatically update major versions aswell?
Where is the support thread?
I have ticket T-D95851 at the moment, if you could get someone to resolve it. I do not want to use cloud agents.
Thanks
zk